Amazon Technologies, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 31, 2021

2020004397 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2021)

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.
15/665,120 07/31/2017 Eric Jason Brandwine 020346.069902 6033
131836 7590 08/31/2021
Hogan Lovells US LLP - Amazon
3 Embarcadero Center
Suite 1500
San Francisco, CA 94111
EXAMINER
LAGOR, ALEXANDER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2021 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):
hlusdocketing@hoganlovells.com
teri.nelmark@hoganlovells.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ERIC JASON BRANDWINE
and GREGORY BRANCHEK ROTH
____________________
Appeal 2020-004397
Application 15/665,120
Technology Center 2400
_______________

Before TERRY J. OWENS, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellant2 seeks our review3 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final
rejection of Claims 1–14 and 16–20. Appeal Br. 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed November 29, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”); Appellant’s Reply Brief filed May 27, 2020 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed April 1, 2020 (“Ans.”); the Final Rejection
mailed June 14, 2019 (“Final Act.”), and the Specification filed July 31,
2017 (“Spec.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. The Appeal Brief identifies Amazon Technologies, Inc.,
as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
3 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could
Appeal 2020-004397
Application 15/665,120

2
We REVERSE.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
INVENTION
The claims relate to enhanced data security in a distributed system.
See Abstract. Claims 1, 6, and 17 are independent. Appeal Br. 3. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1
which is reproduced below with some formatting added:
1. A system comprising:
a first computer, the first computer comprising at least one non-
transitory computer-readable storage medium with instructions, which when
performed by one or more processors, cause the first computer to at least:
in response to receiving at least one command, store
information associated with the at least [one] command in a
transaction log comprising a plurality of portions;
request a digital signature corresponding to a cryptographic
key;
sign a portion of the plurality of portions of the transaction log
with the digital signature; and
transmit the signed portion of the transaction log and the digital
signature to a second computer; and
the second computer to read the transaction log using the digital
signature.

have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be forfeit. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-004397
Application 15/665,120

3
Prior Art
Name4 Reference Date
England US 6,327,652 B1 Dec. 4, 2001
Minamimoto US 2015/0256344 A1 Sept. 10. 2015

REJECTION5 AT ISSUE
Claims 1–14 and 16–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Minamimoto and England. Final Act. 3–10.

ALLOWABLE SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 15 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Final Act. 2.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We find Appellant persuasive with
respect to the rejections under § 103.

CLAIMS 1–14 AND 16–20: OBVIOUSNESS OVER MINAMIMOTO AND ENGLAND
Appellant states: “For at least similar reasons discussed above with
respect to independent claim 1, Appellant respectfully submits that the cited
combination does not teach such subject matter as recited in [independent]
claims 6 and 17.” Appeal Br. 12. Appellant further states: “claims 2–5, 7–

4 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
5 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act. 2.
Appeal 2020-004397
Application 15/665,120

4
14, 16, and 18–20 are allowable at least for depending from an allowable
independent claim.” Id.
In view of Appellant’s statements, we decide the appeal of the § 103
rejections on the basis of Claim 1 and refer to the rejected claims
collectively herein as “the claims.” See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). See In re McDaniel, 293 F.3d
1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (“[T]he Board is free to select a single claim
from each group of claims subject to a common ground of rejection as
representative of all claims in that group and to decide the appeal of that
rejection based solely on the selected representative claim” in the absence of
a clear statement asserting separate patentability of the claims.).
A transaction log comprising portions that are signed,
transmitted and read using a digital signature
The Examiner finds Minamimoto discloses all the structural and
corresponding functional elements of the claims except wherein the
transaction log comprises a plurality of portions each of which may be
signed which is disclosed in England. Final Act. 5.
Appellant contends signing and transmitting a portion of a log, as
claimed, is incompatible with the system of Minamimoto. Appeal Br. 7.
Appellant argues Minamimoto returns a single operations log that is signed
for each command received, whereas England teaches a method that checks
the validity of a booting process by chaining keys used to sign a log every
time a component is properly booted. Id. Appellant argues deleting one or
more sections would break the chain of keys. Id.
The Examiner finds
Appeal 2020-004397
Application 15/665,120

5
a person having ordinary skill in the art would have found it
obvious to substitute a single portion log, as is the case in
Minamimoto, with a log containing a plurality of portions as is
the case in England. In addition, the examiner argued that such
a combination would specifically permit ensuring that multiple
portions of the log file cannot be altered.
Ans. 7.
Appellant contends the Specification explains that logs have entries
which are of recorded events; and that entries, being recorded events at
different times, allow portioning, signing, and transmission:
For example, if the request was a request to store data, a logged
entry may indicate that the data that was stored. As another
example, if the request was to increment a value by a certain
amount, a logged entry may indicate the value that was
indicated by a certain amount. Other data storage operations
resulting in the mutation of a data set may also be performed.
Reply Br. 4–5 (quoting Spec., ¶ 42). Appellant further discloses:
[T]he process 500 may be modified so that a portion of the
transaction log is digitally signed, such as a portion that is to be
transmitted for processing by the system to which the portion of
the transaction log is transmitted. In this manner, additional
events may be recorded into the transaction log, but only a
portion is transmitted at a time, and only the portion that is
being transmitted at a particular time is digitally signed to
enable a receiver of the transmission of the portion of the
transaction log to verify the digital signature. Other variations
are also considered as being within the scope of the present
disclosure.
Reply Br. 5 (quoting Spec., ¶ 46).
Appellant argues the Examiner misinterprets the claim language
without reference to the Specification. Reply Br. 5. Appellant quotes the
Answer:
Appeal 2020-004397
Application 15/665,120

6
[T]he examiner reads the “a portion” as the Minamimoto’s
“hash value for the command information”, which is signed by
“a digital signature” (e.g. “calculates a digital signature for the
hash value generated in Step S 14”) and stored in the operation
log (e.g. “generates an operation log” and “operation log ...
includes command information 311 ... and a digital signature).
Reply Br. 5. (quoting Ans. 6) (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner fails to explain how “Minamimoto’s ‘hash value for the
command information’” aligns with the Specification disclosure of
“portion.” As the Federal Circuit has emphasized, the broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification is not whether the Specification
precludes some broad reading of the claim term adopted by the Examiner.
See In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Nor is
the broadest reasonable interpretation simply one that is not inconsistent
with the Specification. Id. at 1383. Rather, it is an interpretation that
corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the
Specification, that is, an interpretation consistent with the Specification. Id.
(citing In re Suitco Surface, Inc., 603 F.3d 1255, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2010)).
England Discloses:
In another aspect of the invention, a record of the loading
of each component is placed into a boot log. The boot log is
protected from tampering through a chain of public-private key
pairs. The contents of the boot log are used to determine
whether the operating system is to be considered trusted or
untrusted.
England, col. 4, ll. 18–23. As argued by Appellant (see Appeal Br. 7) the
Examiner fails to explain why it would be obvious to transmit a portion of a
log, as claimed, where an intact chain of public-private key pairs is required
to ensure the integrity of the log.
Appeal 2020-004397
Application 15/665,120

7
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
1–14 and 16–20.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–14, 16–
20
103 Minamimoto, England 1–14, 16–
20

REVERSED