Ex Parte Bullis et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 201411967153 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte PAUL K. BULLIS, JAMES E. FOX, DANIEL P. JULIN, and MARTIN J. TROTTER ____________ Appeal 2012-007117 Application 11/967,153 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and KEVIN C. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-007117 Application 11/967,153 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, and 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to privacy preservation of “core dump file generation during application fault handling” (Spec. ¶ 1; Abstract). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for privacy preservation of core dump data during application fault handling, the method comprising: receiving a crash signal for an application; generating a core dump with object data for the application; obfuscating the object data in the core dump by encrypting the object data using an encryption key; and, writing the core dump with obfuscated object data to a file. REFERENCE and REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. §102 as being anticipated by Bank (US 2008/0126301 A1, May 29, 2008). ISSUE The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding Bank teaches the limitation of “obfuscating the object data in the core dump by encrypting the object data using an encryption key,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2012-007117 Application 11/967,153 3 ANALYSIS Appellants argue Bank does not teach the obfuscation of the object data in the core dump by encrypting the object data using an encryption key (Br. 6). Appellants explain that while Bank describes sensitive information has been altered, e.g., masked, concealed, erased, filtered, changed, modified, adjusted, disguised, removed or otherwise rendered non-apparent (¶ 41), Bank does not specifically disclose obfuscating the object data in the core dump by encrypting the object data using an encryption key (Br. 8). Appellants further argue Bank’s paragraph 41 only discloses altering the sensitive information in the core dump, not all object data in the core dump (Br. 8). Appellants also argue Bank’s input parameters are used to identify sensitive information but do not constitute a core dump (Br. 9; Bank ¶ 42). We do not agree with Appellants’ argument. We agree with the Examiner that Bank’s paragraphs 41–43 teach input parameters, which are utilized to alter the sensitive information in the core dump (Ans. 7). The information is altered using arbitrary or default strings (Ans. 7). When the input parameters use the arbitrary strings to alter the sensitive information, the input parameters in essence become the core data (Ans. 7). The Examiner provides as an example paragraph 84 of Bank (see also paragraph 85), wherein the input parameter, which is a value 9, alters sensitive information of telephone numbers by changing the digits of the telephone number to 9s (Ans. 7). Thus, the input parameter of the value 9 replaces the original telephone number (Ans. 7). Accordingly, the input parameters are encrypted for protection from unauthorized access, which in turn, cause the altered sensitive information to also be encrypted (Ans. 7). Appeal 2012-007117 Application 11/967,153 4 Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 10, and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2, 6–8, and 11 which fall therewith (see Br. 5). CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding Bank teaches the limitation of “obfuscating the object data in the core dump by encrypting the object data using an encryption key,” as recited in claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 5–8, 10, and 11 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation