Lenovo Enterprise solutions (singapore) PTE. LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMar 29, 20212019004438 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 2021) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 14/723,418 05/27/2015 Gary D. Cudak XRPS920150008-US-NP 8339 127893 7590 03/29/2021 Streets Lawfirm, PC - Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. 20319 Corbin Creek Drive Cypress, TX 77433 EXAMINER GIDDINS, NELSON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2021 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address(es): jstreets@streetsiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GARY D. CUDAK, CHRISTOPHER J. HARDEE, and ADAM ROBERTS ____________________ Appeal 2019-004438 Application 14/723,4181 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MARC S. HOFF, ERIC S. FRAHM, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–11.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant’s invention is a method and system for trans-locality based fixed storage security. The method includes storing, in memory of a fixed disk, a key received from a key source over a computer communications 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant states that the real party in interest is Lenovo Enterprise Solutions (Singapore) PTE. LTD. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 4, 8, and 12 have been cancelled. Appeal 2019-004438 Application 14/723,418 2 network. When a request to access encrypted data is received from a physically coupled computer, the key is retrieved from the key source and its validity is determined. The method then comprises the steps of decrypting the encrypted data and returning the decrypted data to the computer if the retrieved key is valid. Abstract. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method for trans-locality based fixed storage security, the method comprising: storing in memory of a fixed disk a key received from a key source over a computer communications network; subsequent to the receiving of the key from over the computer communications network, receiving in firmware of the fixed disk from a physically coupled computer by way of a drive interface cable multiple different requests to access encrypted data stored in the fixed disk; responding to each of a multiplicity of requests to access the encrypted data stored in the fixed disk by attempting to retrieve the key received from the key source and if able to retrieve the key, determining a validity of the retrieved key; for each of the requests, on condition that the key is both able to be retrieved and valid, decrypting the encrypted data with the key and, if the decrypted data is still encrypted by a locally generated key of the fixed disk, additionally decrypting the decrypted data with the locally generated data and then returning the decrypted data to the computer, but otherwise denying the request; and, periodically receiving a new key from over the computer communications network, replacing the key stored in the memory with the new key, decrypting the encrypted data with the key stored in the memory and re-encrypting the decrypted data with the new key. Appeal 2019-004438 Application 14/723,418 3 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is: Name Reference Date Thibadeau US 2005/0262361 A1 Nov. 24, 2005 Goodman US 2008/0063210 A1 Mar. 13, 2008 Aramaki US 2013/0191636 A1 July 25, 2013 Hayes US 2016/0004877 A1 Jan. 7, 2016 Claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Thibadeau, Aramaki, Goodman, and Hayes. Final Act. 6–7.3 Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed Jan. 15, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 15, 2019), the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 10, 2018), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Mar. 15, 2019) for their respective details. ISSUE Does the combination of Thibadeau, Aramaki, Goodman, and Hayes teach or suggest, if the decrypted data is still encrypted by a locally generated key of the fixed disk, decrypting the decrypted data with the locally generated data and then returning the decrypted data to the computer? ANALYSIS Representative claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, “if the decrypted data is still encrypted by a locally generated key of the fixed disk, additionally 3 The Examiner has withdrawn the previous rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–11 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-004438 Application 14/723,418 4 decrypting the decrypted data with the locally generated data and then returning the decrypted data to the computer, but otherwise denying the request.” The other independent claims (5 and 9) recite the same limitation. The Examiner finds that Thibadeau in combination with Aramaki and Goodman does not explicitly teach this limitation, and cites Hayes for its teachings. Final Act. 10. Appellant argues that (a) the Examiner refers to the grid key of Hayes as being equivalent to the claimed locally generated key of the fixed disk, and (b) the grid key of Hayes is not locally generated in the fixed disk. Appeal Br. 9. Appellant asserts that element 784 of Hayes generates the grid key, and that element 784 is separate and remote from storage cluster 160 where the encrypted data is stored. Appeal Br. 9–10. The Examiner finds that Hayes teaches that “in a storage grid 671 having three systems, e.g. three storage clusters, at least two of the systems should be available in order to regenerate the storage key 902 needed to encrypt or decrypt data. One of the systems can be the system on which the data is stored (either the local system or the replica system).” Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted); Hayes ¶ 65. The Examiner further finds that “[a]n external secret 904 is combined with a storage key 902, to generate a grid key 906 that is applied to encrypt data prior to encryption with the storage key 902.” Ans. 5 (emphasis omitted); Hayes ¶ 66. Appellant replies to the Examiner’s Answer by pointing out Hayes’s teaching that external secret 904 may be provided by a smart card or a key server. Reply Br. 5–6 (citing Hayes ¶ 66). Because “the smart card is not the storage cluster,” reasons Appellant, “it cannot be said that the grid key is Appeal 2019-004438 Application 14/723,418 5 produced locally in the storage cluster as asserted by the Examiner.” Reply Br. 6 (emphasis omitted). We disagree with Appellant’s arguments. Appellant does not dispute Hayes’s teaching that storage key 902 is combined with external secret 904 to generate grid key 906. The claim language requires “a locally generated key of the fixed disk” (emphasis added), which the Examiner equates to the grid key of Hayes. Appellant has not identified disclosure in the Specification to the effect that a “locally generated” key could not be a key resulting from the combination of a storage key and an “external” secret. Appellant has not cited any definition of “locally generated” that would exclude a key produced by the combination of a storage key present on local storage with “external” data. The Examiner cites to a teaching in Hayes that its method “can be performed using one or more processors, such as a processor of one or more of the above embodiments,” and that “[a] grid key is generated from the storage key and an external secret, in an action 1104.” Hayes ¶ 72; Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner that one of the disclosed “local” processors may execute the steps of generating the grid key from the storage key where the data is locally stored at the Non-Volatile Solid State Memory. Ans. 7. Because we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Thibadeau, Aramaki, Goodman, and Hayes teaches all the limitations of independent claims 1, 5, and 9, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–11. CONCLUSION The combination of Thibadeau, Aramaki, Goodman, and Hayes teaches, if the decrypted data is still encrypted by a locally generated key of Appeal 2019-004438 Application 14/723,418 6 the fixed disk, decrypting the decrypted data with the locally generated data and then returning the decrypted data to the computer. DECISION SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–3, 5–7, and 9–11 is affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–3, 5–7, 9–11 103 Thibadeau, Aramaki, Goodman, Hayes 1–3, 5–7, 9–11 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation