13424428 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

Ex Parte Hazlewood et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 13, 2016

13424428 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/424,428 03/20/2012 35525 7590 05/17/2016 IBM CORP (YA) C/O YEE & AS SOCIA TES PC P.O. BOX 802333 DALLAS, TX 75380 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kristin M. Hazlewood 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. AUS920100100US2 1253 EXAMINER CHIANG, JASON ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2431 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/1712016 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): ptonotifs@yeeiplaw.com mgamez@yeeiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KRISTIN M. HAZLEWOOD, JOHN T. PECK, and KRISHNA K. YELLEPEDDY Appeal2014-003867 Application 13/424,428 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Final Rejection (April 24, 2013) of claims 1-8, which are each rejected as anticipated by Chang (US 2009/0003609 Al; Jan. 1, 2009) or obvious over Chang in view of other references. 1 Having reviewed the Final Rejection, Appeal Brief, and Answer, we concur with Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred in finding Chang teaches comparing of timestamps in response to a request for cryptographic information. 1 A Decision on Appeal for related application 12/763,811 was entered December 3, 2015. Appeal2014-003867 Application 13/424,428 More particularly, for the reasons presented at the Appeal Briefs pages 6-9, we concur the Examiner has not shown Chang teaches "responsive to receiving a request for cryptographic information ... , determining ... whether a first time stamp of cryptographic information creation [is] more recent than a second time stamp of a backup of the cryptographic information" (independent claim 1; claims 2-8 depending therefrom).2 As reflected by the above emphases, we concur because Chang's cited timestamps comparison is not responsive to a request for cryptographic information. Rather, Chang's cited timestamps comparison is responsive to a keystore update. Chang ,-i,-i 14-1 7. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2-8, which incorporate the disputed recitation. DECISION The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-8 are reversed. REVERSED 2 Considering the claim as a whole and in view of the Specification, claim l's omission of "is" (shown by our above-added "[is]" language) is a clear typographical error. See Spec., abst. ("determination ... whether a first time stamp ... is more recent than a second time stamp"). 2