Ex Parte Kahler et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 201512368032 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DAVID RAY KAHLER, ANJUL MATHUR, and RICHARD ANTHONY RIPBERGER ____________ Appeal 2012-009283 Application 12/368,032 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. In reaching the decision, we have considered only the arguments Appellants actually raised. Arguments Appellants did not make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to safeguarding computer data. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: Appeal 2012-009283 Application 12/368,032 2 1. A method for safeguarding nonvolatile storage (NVS) data by a processor in communication with a memory device following a power loss event, comprising: encrypting a first portion of the NVS data using a first buffer module; and subsequently transferring the first portion of the NVS data to at least one shared storage device while simultaneously encrypting a second portion of the NVS data using a second buffer module, subsequently transferring the second portion of the NVS data to the at least one shared storage device. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1–5, 7–14, 16–21, and 23–25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iida (US 2008/0189484 A1; Aug. 7, 2008), Smith (US 5,329,623; July 12, 1994), and Corrigan (US 5,179,662; Jan. 12, 1993). Claims 6, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iida, Smith, Corrigan, and Acton (US 2006/0212644 A1; Sept. 21, 2006). ISSUES Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding Iida, Smith, and Corrigan collectively teaches: encrypting a first portion of the NVS data using a first buffer module; and subsequently transferring the first portion of the NVS data to at least one shared storage device while simultaneously encrypting a second portion of the NVS data using a second buffer module, Appeal 2012-009283 Application 12/368,032 3 as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9–13; Reply Br. 2–5), and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions on pages 4–7 and 12–14 of the Answer as our own. Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following points for emphasis. First, Appellants cite the Specification throughout their arguments. For example, instead of citing a claim limitation, Appellants contend: [T]he Corrigan teachings illustrate that if the first buffer is not finished writing the by the time the second buffer is ready to be written, the size of buffers are readjusted (See Corrigan abstract). Yet, the claims of the present invention provides for the saving a data in write cache in a short period of time by using only two buffers of predetermined size, with each buffer capable of reading/encrypting and writing to FHD [fire hose dump] disk. App. Br. 11 (Appellants repeat the same on App. Br. 13). In another example, Appellants argue while Iida teaches writing to nonvolatile memory, the invention relates to data saved on a FHD. See App. Br. 12. In a third example, Appellants cite Specification examples, but claim 1 does not recite many details from the Specification examples. See App. Br. 9–10; Reply Br. 2–3. We do not import limitations from the Specification into the disputed claim terms. It is well established that during examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, but Appeal 2012-009283 Application 12/368,032 4 without importing limitations from the specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted); SuperGuide Corp. v. DirecTV Enters., Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellants do not contend that the inventors have assigned special meanings to the disputed claim terms. Instead, as discussed above, Appellants cite examples from the Specification, and argue that cited references do not teach those examples from the Specification. See App. Br. 9–12. In fact, Appellants do not map those Specification examples to the claim. See App. Br. 9–12. Second, Appellants assert while the invention requires “simultaneously writing and encrypting portions of the NVS data to a storage device in parallel,” the cited references do not teach using double buffering to encrypt data prior to write it to the NVS storage device. See App. Br. 9–10. Appellants argue Iida fails to teach encryption using a first and second buffer, and Smith and Corrigan are silent about using a first and second buffer to encrypt and write to a storage device. See App. Br. 10; see also 3–5. Appellants contend the combination of Iida and Corrigan would result in using double buffering for writing data. See App. Br. 10–11. Later, Appellants assert the combination of Iida and Corrigan would result in using double buffering for encrypting data, but provide no support for such assertion. See Reply Br. 5. Appellants fail to show reversible error. Appellants’ arguments that Iida fails to teach encryption using a first and second buffer, and Smith and Corrigan are silent about using a first and second buffer to encrypt and write to a storage device, are unpersuasive. Because the Examiner relies on cited Appeal 2012-009283 Application 12/368,032 5 references collectively to teach the disputed claim limitations, Appellants cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Further, the Examiner provides comprehensive mappings to show the cited references collectively teach “encrypting a first portion of the NVS data using a first buffer module; and subsequently transferring the first portion of the NVS data to at least one shared storage device while simultaneously encrypting a second portion of the NVS data using a second buffer module,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 4–7 and 12–14. The Examiner correctly finds Iida teaches the claim element “nonvolatile storage (NVS) data.” See Ans. 4–5 (citing Iida ¶ 47, Fig. 2). Based on that finding and Iida’s Figure 7, the Examiner finds Iida teaches “encrypting . . . the NVS data . . . ,” and “subsequently transferring the . . . NVS data to at least one shared storage device.” See Ans. 5. As a result, Iida teaches the claim element “encrypting,” and Corrigan does not need to teach that claim element. It is undisputed Corrigan teaches double buffering, which is well known in the art. See Ans. 12–13; App. Br. 10. Further, the Examiner correctly finds Corrigan teaches “[writing] a first portion of the . . . data . . . using a first buffer module,” and “subsequently transferring the first portion of the . . . data to at least one shared storage device while simultaneously [writing] a second portion of the . . . data using a second buffer module,” as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 13. Therefore, Iida and Corrigan collectively teaches “encrypting a first portion of the NVS data using a first buffer module; and subsequently transferring the first portion of the NVS data to at Appeal 2012-009283 Application 12/368,032 6 least one shared storage device while simultaneously encrypting a second portion of the NVS data using a second buffer module,” as recited in claim 1. Using Corrigan’s well known double buffering technique in the Iida method would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 422 (2007). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 2–25 for similar reasons. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25 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 tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation