Ex Parte SATYAVOLU et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2018

14280021 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/280,021 05/16/2014 Surya SATYAVOLU
30636 7590 07/31/2018
FAY KAPLUN & MARCIN, LLP
150 BROADWAY, SUITE 702
NEW YORK, NY 10038
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
40101/23501 (2013.003) 7783
EXAMINER
PATEL, NITIN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2116
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/31/2018 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SURYA SATYA VOLU and THIERRY PREYSSLER1
Appeal 2017-011326
Application 14/280,021
Technology Center 2100
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Invention
Appellant discloses causing a "processor to perform operations
including mapping a memory area storing a segment of code for a kernel of
the system during an initialization time"; "executing the segment of code
1 Appellant is the applicant, Wind River Systems, Inc., identified in the
Appeal Brief as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-011326
Application 14/280,021
during the initialization"; and "umnapping a portion of the memory area for
the kernel after the segment of code has been executed." Abstract. The
claimed invention is directed to embodiments where, in re-mapping step
270, portions of memory 130 containing application payload 332 and
initialization data/initialization code 332 are un-mapped. Spec. ,r 20, Figs.
2-3.
Illustrative Claim (key limitations emphasized)
1. A non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing
a set of instructions executable by a processor, the set of instructions,
when executed by the processor, causing the processor to perform
operations comprising:
during an initialization time of a system, mapping a memory
area storing a segment of code for a kernel of the system;
during the initialization time, executing the segment of code;
and
after the segment of code has been executed, unmapping a
portion of the memory area for the kernel,
wherein the segment of code is stored in the portion of
the memory area that is unmapped in the unmapping step, and
wherein the segment of code comprises an application
payload.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3-7, 9, 10, 12-16, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Berenbaum et al. (US
2009/0063799 Al; published Mar. 5, 2009) ("Berenbaum"), Arditti et al.
(US 2012/0096252 Al; published Apr. 19, 2012) ("Arditti"), and Miller et
al. (US 2006/0277233 Al; published Dec. 7, 2006) ("Miller"). Non-Final
Act. 2-11.
2
Appeal 2017-011326
Application 14/280,021
The Examiner rejects claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Berenbaum, Arditti, Miller, and Graham et al. (US
2013/0151849 Al; published June 13, 2013) ("Graham"). Non-Final Act.
12.
The Examiner rejects claims 8 and 1 7 under 3 5 U.S. C. § 1 0 3 (a) as
being unpatentable over Berenbaum, Arditti, Miller, and Patel et al. (US
2013/0132702 Al; published May 23, 2013) ("Patel"). Non-Final Act. 12-
13.
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
Miller teaches a handheld calculator with the ability to disable and re-
enable functionality. See Miller Abstract. Specifically, "individual bits in [a
Disable/Re-enable] space are mapped to programs and other functionality
the calculator is programmed to execute." Id. ,r 27. "A flag bit set to 1
indicates that the associated Program is enabled, while a flag bit set to 0
indicates that the associated Program is disabled." Id. The operating system
is modified to check this Disable/Re-enable space "before running a
Program it has been commanded to execute." Id. ,r 28.
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that disabling a
program in Miller by setting the associated flag bit to 0, such that the
program will not be executed by the operating system, teaches or suggests
unmapping a portion of the memory area for the kernel, wherein the segment
of code is stored in the portion of the memory area that is unmapped in the
unmapping step. See Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Miller Abstract, Fig. 4, ,r,r 27-
28); see also Ans. 4--5 (further citing Miller Fig. 1, ,r,r 21-22, 26).
The Examiner also finds that Berenbaum's disabling of access to
memory in an address range teaches or suggests the claimed unmapping of a
3
Appeal 2017-011326
Application 14/280,021
portion of the memory for the kernel. Ans. 3--4 (citing, e.g., Berenbaum
,r,r 4, 17, 19, 59---64, 76, 80-82, Fig. 4).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because although Miller's
"operating system is modified to check the Disable/Re-enable space," "the
operating system is still permitted to show the memory locations of all
programs." App. Br. 4--5 (citing Miller ,r 28). Appellant argues "Miller
makes no mention of anything being stored in a portion of memory that is
unmapped." App. Br. 5. Appellant further argues that because a disabled
program in Miller can still be erased by the user, a disabled program in
Miller is still mapped. Id. (citing Miller ,r 28); see also Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellant further argues Berenbaum prevents "access to data by
masking/blocking data read from the memory" rather than unmapping a
portion of memory. Reply Br. 6.
ANALYSIS
Appellant's contention that an artisan of ordinary skill "would
unders[t]and that a portion of the memory that has been unmapped from the
kernel means that the kernel no longer has any access to a portion of the
memory where the kernel previously had full access privileges ( e.g. read,
write, execute)" (App. Br. 5) accords with the Specification. Specifically,
the Specification discloses mapping and unmapping of areas of memory,
where mapping particular locations within memory grants the kernel access
to resources and where unmapping removes such access such that the kernel,
even if compromised, is unable to access the resources. See, e.g., Spec.
,r,r 12, 15, Fig. 3.
Miller's use of a Disable/Re-enable space does not have the same
features of the claimed unmapping. Rather than making a disabled program
4
Appeal 2017-011326
Application 14/280,021
inaccessible to an operating system ( e.g., the kernel), Miller's Disable/Re-
enable space merely informs the operating system whether the program
should be allowed to be displayed, executed, or edited. Miller ,r 28. As
Appellant correctly notes, "[t]he OS could still be permitted to show the
memory locations of all Programs, for example in a memory display mode,
provided the OS in such mode did not permit the user access to the Program
other than, perhaps, to erase it." Id.; see also App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4--5. We
agree with Appellant that this continued access to a disabled program----even
if only for purposes of displaying memory locations of all programs, and
perhaps erasing a disabled program-illustrates that setting a program's
associated flag bit to zero does not remove all access to the program. See
App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 4--5.
Furthermore, Miller requires modifications to the operating system for
the Disable/Re-enable space to have any effect. See Miller ,r 28 ("the OS is
modified to check the Disable/Re-enable space in flash memory before
running a Program."). This further shows that setting a program's associated
flag bit to zero does not unmap the program to prevent the operating system
from having any access to the program. Instead, the operating system--
having continued access to the program-must use programmed discretion
to make use of the flag bit to restrict use of the program.
The Examiner does not show that Berenbaum cures the noted
deficiency of Miller. As Appellant correctly notes, Berenbaum disables
access to a portion of memory without unmapping the memory. Reply Br. 6.
Rather, Berenbaum blocks access to the memory by masking data bits read
from a disabled memory address. See Berenbaum ,r 99. This obfuscates the
5
Appeal 2017-011326
Application 14/280,021
underlying data, but the Examiner has not shown that data obfuscation falls
within a reasonably broad interpretation of "unmapping."
For these reasons, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner's
findings do not show that Miller or Berenbaum teach or suggest "unmapping
a portion of the memory area for the kernel, wherein the segment of code is
stored in the portion of the memory area that is unmapped in the unmapping
step," as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner does not show that Arditti, Graham, or Patel cure the
noted deficiency of Miller and Berenbaum. Accordingly, we do not sustain
the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, or the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2-20, which contain similar
recitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
REVERSED
6