Ex Parte Hsu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 29, 2012

09896255 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 29, 2012)

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.
09/896,255 06/28/2001 Sherry Chu-Hsin Hsu 50P4299.01/1575 9177
24272 7590 08/29/2012
Gregory J. Koerner
Redwood Patent Law
1291 East Hillsdale Boulevard
Suite 205
Foster City, CA 94404
EXAMINER
TRAN, ELLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2012 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHERRY CHU-HSIN HSU, PRAVEEN K. KOLLI, and
DELMAR MARR
____________

Appeal 2009-012841
Application 09/896,255
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before LANCE LEONARD BARRY, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-41. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2009-012841
Application 09/896,255

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and system for
efficiently performing data encryption operations (Spec. 1:14-16).
Independent claim 21, reproduced below, is illustrative.
21. A method for performing a data encryption operation in an
electronic system, comprising:

creating an encryption structure in a memory device by
utilizing a processor;

programming control registers by said processor to
perform said data encryption operation;

accessing said encryption structure and said control
registers with a DMA engine; and

processing source data with an encryption module of said
DMA engine to produce destination data, said encryption
module utilizing command information from said encryption
structure and control information from said control registers to
perform said data encryption operation.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-23, and 25-41 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) based upon the teachings of Ober (US Patent No. 6,708,273 B1,
issued March 16, 2004, filed February 25, 1999).
The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based upon the teachings of Ober and Okaue (US Patent No. 6,820,203 B1,
issued Nov. 16, 2004, filed April 6, 2000).

Appeal 2009-012841
Application 09/896,255

3
ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102
Appellants assert the Examiner is incorrect in finding Ober anticipates
the claimed invention. Particularly, Appellants contend Ober “fails to
disclose the relationship between the claimed ‘DMA engine’ and ‘encryption
module’” (App. Br. 8). That is, Ober does not teach a DMA engine
including an encryption module (claim 1) or “processing source data with an
encryption module of said DMA engine” (claim 21) (emphasis added) (App.
Br. 7-8).
The Examiner finds Ober teaches, in Figure 1, a DMA controller
circuit 42 and a DMA subsystem 6. The Examiner then finds Figure 6 of
Ober shows the DMA subsystem 6 shown in Figure 1. (Ans. 9-10). Further,
Ober recites the DMA controller is “preferably included within the
cryptographic co-processor” (Ober, col. 7, ll. 37-38; Ans. 9). However, as
Ober discloses (col. 4, ll. 48-51) and Appellants contend, the section of
Figure 1 designated “6” refers to security blocks; whereas Figure 6 is titled
“32-Bit DMA Subsystem” (col. 25, ll. 8-10), and not the security blocks 6 as
the Examiner finds (Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 3). We agree. Ober shows a
DMA controller separate from the encryption structure (Fig. 1) and not a
DMA engine including an encryption module as claimed.
As Ober does not teach all the features of Appellants’ claimed
invention, Ober does not anticipate Appellants’ claims 1-3, 5-23, and 25-41.1

1 The Examiner addresses claim 21 in the Answer (Ans. 3) and groups
claims 1 and 41 with claim 21 (Ans.7).
Appeal 2009-012841
Application 09/896,255

4
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Okaue does not cure the deficiencies of Ober. Thus, claims 4 and 24
are not obvious over the combination of Okaue and Ober.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-41 is reversed.

REVERSED

peb