Ex Parte Farmer et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

10669784 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JAMES C. FARMER and KENT A. DICKEY
____________

Appeal 2010-004516
Application 10/669,784
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., ERIC S. FRAHM and ANDREW J.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004516
Application 10/669,784

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 15, 16, 19 and
20. Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.

Introduction
The invention is directed to method and system for protecting memory
space in a storage device during a write operation. Appeal Brief 6.

Illustrative Claim
1. A method for protecting memory space in a target storage
device during a write operation in a computer system, the
method comprising:

creating a single data packet, including user data that is to
be written in a write operation to said target storage device and
key data that is used to establish authorization to store said user
data, said key data being generated based upon a destination
address of said write operation and based on a portion of said
user data;

transmitting said single data packet to the target storage
device;

determining whether said key data is valid; and

writing said user data into said target storage device only
when said key data is valid.

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3-5, 15, 16, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Garcia (U.S. Patent Number 6,151,689;
Appeal 2010-004516
Application 10/669,784

3
issued November 21, 2000) and Taguchi (U.S. Patent Number 5,915,025;
issued June 22, 1999. Answer 3-8.
Claims 8-13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Garcia, Taguchi and Adler (U.S. Patent Number
4,255,811; issued March 10, 1981). Answer 8-15.

Issue on Appeal
Do Garcia, Taguchi and Adler, either separately or in combination,
disclose “said key data being generated based upon a destination address of
said write operation and based on a portion of said user data,” as recited in
claim 1?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Although the Examiner finds that Garcia teaches a “single data packet
… including user data” (claim 1), Appellants disagree and submit that both
Garcia and Taguchi fail to teach or suggest this claimed feature. Appeal
Brief 9. Appellants argue that Garcia refers to the data in the packets of
Appeal 2010-004516
Application 10/669,784

4
Figures 3A-4C as “input/output data” and therefore does not teach or suggest
user data as claimed. Id.
Appellants further argue that neither Garcia nor Taguchi, alone or in
combination, teaches or suggests this claimed feature because “embodiments
of the present invention enable simultaneous transmission of user data and
key data in a single packet which decreases the time period for which the
target device is vulnerable to an erroneous data transmission.” Appeal Brief
9-10.
The Examiner finds that Garcia is directed to facilitating delivering
user oriented data such as text-only e-mail, image, voice and video files over
a communication network and therefore discloses that the data is
user-oriented data. Answer 16 (citations omitted). The Examiner finds that
figures 3A-3D and 4A-4C show various types of packets comprising of
Header, Address, Data and CRC in a single packet wherein the data refers to
payload data or user data. Id. Therefore, we do not find Appellants’
arguments to be persuasive because Garcia discloses transmitting a single
data packet which includes user data as claimed.
Appellants contend that Taguchi does not address the noted deficiency
of Garcia because:
[W]ith Taguchi, the key data is not sent in a single data packet
with the user data, as claimed. Taguchi provides details for how
to generate key data. However, Taguchi actually teaches away
from the claimed feature of a single data packet by teaching the
key and the data are sent separately. In column 7, line 60
through column 8, line 6. Taguchi teaches “The encrypted data
is placed in the storage means. [sic] When a request is made by
the control means to process the encrypted data, the decryption
key generation means generates the decryption key. This is very
different from generating the key data based on the user data
Appeal 2010-004516
Application 10/669,784

5
and sending it in a single data packet with the user data, as
claimed.
For at least the foregoing rationale, Appellants respectfully
submit that Claim 1, and similarly Claims 8 and 15, are
patentable over Garcia in view of Taguchi under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a). As such, allowance of Claims 1, 3-5, 15-16 and 19- 20
is respectfully requested.

Appeal Brief 10.
The Examiner did not rely upon Taguchi to disclose data sent in a
single package, the Examiner relied upon Garcia’s disclosure. Answer 3, 4
and 18. Appellants have not provided any evidence that Taguchi’s failure to
disclose data sent in a single package would be a detriment to combining
Garcia and Taguchi, and therefore, we do not find Appellants’ argument that
Taguchi teaches away from “the claimed feature of a single data docket”
(Appeal Brief 10) persuasive because nothing in Taguchi would have
discouraged a person skilled in the art from making a modification to Garcia
such that the key data being generated is based upon a destination address of
the write operation as claimed. See Answer 5-6. See also In re ICON
Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“A reference
may be said to teach away when a person of ordinary skill, upon reading the
reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the
reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was
taken by the applicant.” (citation omitted)).
Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
1, 8 and 15, as well as claims 3-5, 16, 19 and 20 dependent therefrom and
not separately argued.
Appeal 2010-004516
Application 10/669,784

6
Appellants argue that “Adler fails to teach or suggest a single data
packet with user data.” Appeal Brief 11. However, the Examiner did not
rely upon Adler for such teachings. Answer 11, 12 and 19. Therefore, we
do not find Appellants arguments to be persuasive, and we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 9-13 for the same reasons as stated above.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 8-13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

peb