Ex Parte Baentsch et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2017

13036445 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017)

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.
13/036,445 02/28/2011 Michael Baentsch CH920090047US1 (714) 4961
46320 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
MEHRMANESH, AMIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2017 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL BAENTSCH, HAROLD D. DYKEMAN,
MICHAEL C. OSBORNE, and TAMAS VISEGRADY
Appeal 2015-007153
Application 13/036,445
Technology Center 2400
Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appellants have filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R.
§41.52 requesting that we reconsider our decision on October 3, 2016,
wherein we affirmed the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4-15.
Appellants contend that we misconstrued the Examiner’s findings
regarding the claim limitations of “storing] the secret data items in a
memory [] of the memory device” and “restor[ing] secret data items from
the memory [] of the memory device [] to the remote server,” as recited in
Appeal 2015-007153
Application 13/036,445
independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claims 11, 12, and
15. Req. Reh’g 4-6. Specifically, Appellants contend that “the Examiner
equated the storage of secret data to the smartcard as transferring security
data from portable data storage to a key-server.” Id. at 5. Additionally,
Appellants contend that “instead of referring to the transferring of the
security data from the key-server back to the portable data storage as the
analog to the claimed, ‘restoring secret data items,’ [the] Examiner instead
referred to the storage of the transferred security data to a reconstructed
database.” Id. Therefore, Appellants contend that we erred in finding that
the Examiner was correct that Hamid teaches restoring data from the
smartcard. Id.
We disagree with Appellants. Under 37 C.F.R. § 41.52(a)(1), a
“request for rehearing must state with particularity the points believed to
have been misapprehended or overlooked by the Board.”
Appellants’ arguments mischaracterize the Examiner’s findings
regarding Hamid. As explained in our decision, the Examiner finds that
Hamid teaches a portable storage device memory that both stores and
restores functions. See Dec. 6; Non-Final Act. 9-10 (finding that Hamid
discloses “[sjecure key data . . . transferred from the key-server to the
portable data storage device” and stored within the memory means of the
portable data storage device (i.e. store the secret data items in memory),”
and that such data is “transferred ... to the key-server” and stored “within
the reconstructed database (i.e. restore secret data items) of the key server”);
Ans. 4-5 (similar findings). In particular, the Examiner equates transferring
data from a remote server to the portable storage device for storage in the
portable storage device’s memory, as taught by Hamid, as the storage of
2
Appeal 2015-007153
Application 13/036,445
secret data items in the memory, not as transferring data to a server as
Appellants contend. See Dec. 7; Req. Reh’g 5. Appellants have not
provided persuasive evidence to indicate why the Examiner’s findings are
erroneous. Additionally, we note that the Examiner found that uploading
data stored on the portable storage device memory to a server, as taught in
Hamid, constitutes restoring data items from the memory of a memory
device to a remote server as claimed. See Dec. 7; Non-Final Act. 9-10; Ans.
4—5. As in our previous decision (Dec. 7), we find no reason why this is any
different than that which is claimed.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s findings and are not persuaded
that we misapprehended or overlooked any points in our original decision.
CONCLUSION
We are not persuaded of any errors in our prior decision and maintain
the affirmance of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 4-15. Thus, the
request for rehearing is DENIED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REQUEST FOR REHEARING DENIED
3