Ex Parte Strongin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 10, 2009

09825905 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 10, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte GEOFFREY S. STRONGIN, BRIAN C. BARNES,
and RODNEY SCHMIDT
________________

Appeal 2008-004016
Application 09/825,905
Technology Center 2100
________________

Decided:1 June 11, 2009
________________

Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, LANCE LEONARD BARRY, and
JAY P. LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

MACDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Data (electronic delivery).

Appeal 2008-004016
Application 09/825,905

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, the invention relates to securing portions of
a memory within data processing systems.2
Exemplary Claim
1. A method for providing security in a computer system,
comprising:
controlling access to selected information using attributes
defined in a first table;
controlling access to the selected information using a second
table that associates at least one of a read and write privilege
with one or more physical addresses of a memory that
houses the selected information;
receiving a request from a program to access the information;
and
allowing access to the information in response to determining
that the program has the authority to access the information
based on at least one of the read and write privilege.

2 Spec. 2:6-7
Appeal 2008-004016
Application 09/825,905

3
Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references to show
unpatentability:
Childs 4,442,484 Apr. 10, 1984
Nozue 5,890,189 Mar. 30, 1999

Examiner's Rejection
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-21,
and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as being anticipated by Nozue.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 5-6, 10, 14, 18, 22, and 23 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Nozue and Childs.

ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the prior art teaches (1) controlling
access to selected information using attributes defined in a first table, and
(2) controlling access to the selected information using a second table that
associates at least one of a read and write privilege with one or more
physical addresses of a memory that houses the selected information.

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We found (1) "FIG. 21 is a block diagram of one exemplary
configuration of a memory management unit using the memory protection
device of FIG. 3"; (2) "FIG. 23 is a block diagram of another embodiment of
a memory management unit according to the present invention"; and
Appeal 2008-004016
Application 09/825,905

4
(3) "FIG. 24 is a detailed block diagram of a translation look-aside buffer
(TLB) check device in the memory management unit of FIG. 23" (emphasis
omitted) (Nozue, col. 11, ll. 9-20).
2. We also found (1) "FIG. 41 is a block diagram of another
embodiment of a memory management unit and protection system according
to the present invention," and (2) "FIG. 45 is an illustration of an exemplary
configuration of a program management table to be used by a program
allocation unit in the memory management and protection system of FIG. 41
for a case of multiple virtual space scheme" (emphasis omitted) (Nozue, col.
12, ll. 9-31).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102, “[a] single prior art
reference that discloses, either expressly or inherently, each limitation of a
claim invalidates that claim by anticipation.” Perricone v. Medicis
Pharmaceutical Corp., 432 F.3d 1368, 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (citing Minn.
Mining & Mfg. Co. v. Johnson & Johnson Orthopaedics, Inc., 976 F.2d
1559, 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1992)).
Analysis of whether a claim is patentable over the prior art under
35 U.S.C. § 102 begins with a determination of the scope of the claim. We
determine the scope of the claims in patent applications not solely on the
basis of the claim language, but upon giving claims their broadest reasonable
construction in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of
ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359,
1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The properly interpreted claim must then be
compared with the prior art.
Appeal 2008-004016
Application 09/825,905

5
Anticipation is not established, if in reading a claim on something
disclosed in a reference, it is necessary to pick, choose and combine various
portions of the disclosure, which are not directly related to each other,
according to the teachings of the reference. See In re Arkley, 455 F.2d 586,
587-88 (CCPA 1972).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In so
doing, the Examiner must make the factual determinations set forth in
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17 (1966).
If the Examiner’s burden is met, the burden then shifts to the
Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with argument and/or evidence.
Obviousness is then determined on the basis of the evidence as a whole and
the relative persuasiveness of the arguments. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d
1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992).

ANALYSIS
The Rejection Over Nozue
Controlling Access to Selected Information Using Two Tables
Appellants contend that "the Examiner noted that the 'contents of the
first and second tables [i.e., the tables described in Figure 45 and 24A of
Nozue] correspond to the 'selected information'" (emphasis omitted) (See
App. Br. 11). Appellants argue "[t]o show anticipation under the Examiner's
application of Nozue (where the 'selected information' corresponds to the
'contents' of these tables), the Examiner must show that both tables 'control
access' to each other's contents" (emphasis omitted) (App. Br. 12).
Appeal 2008-004016
Application 09/825,905

6
Further, Appellants argue "[a]s can be seen, the two tables in Nozue
serve two independent, different purposes - Figure 45 table tracks logical
address space for programs mapped to a common logical address space,
whereas Figure 24A is a translation look-aside table that defines access
permissions for various threads," and "[a]s such, neither table 'controls
access' to the 'contents' of the other table" (emphasis omitted) (App. Br. 12).
Appellants also contend "[i]n contrast, . . . claim 1 calls for controlling
access to the same selected information using two tables" (App. Br. 12).
The Examiner found that "the 'selected information' refers to regions
under protection" (Ans. 16; See also Ans. 3). Further, the Examiner found
that "in Nozue's invention, page and region are used interchangeably . . . and
a reference to a physical page number applies to all the physical memory
addresses within the physical page (Ans. 4).
With regard to controlling access to the selected information, the
Examiner found (1) "figure 45 of Nozue shows a plurality of regions
(regions 0, 1, 2, …) each with their starting and end address and its
protection key, thus the 'selected information' corresponds to the
'information stored in these regions . . . using attributes defined in a first
table [i.e., the table shown in figure 45]" (emphasis omitted) (See Ans. 3);
(2)"the protection of each physical page is accomplished by controlling the
access to each page using the privilege of 'rwx' (read, write and execution)";
and (3) "[t]his is clearly shown in figure 24A, where each physical page
number (312) has an associated entry of 'rwx' (315)" (Ans. 14).
The Examiner is apparently of the opinion that the claimed feature of
(1) controlling access to selected information using a first table is taught by
Figure 45 of Nozue, and (2) controlling access to selected information using
Appeal 2008-004016
Application 09/825,905

7
a second table is taught by Figure 24A of Nozue. We find that Figures 24 A
and 45 depict different embodiments of the Nozue reference (See FF 1-2 ).
As discussed above, anticipation is not established if, in reading a
claim limitation on something disclosed in a reference, it is necessary to
pick, choose and combine various portions of the disclosure, which
according to the teachings of the reference, are not directly related to each
other. See In re Arkely, 455 F.2d at 587-588.
Accordingly, Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's
conclusion of anticipation for representative claim 1. Therefore, the
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-4 which depend therefrom is reversed.

OTHER REJECTIONS
The Examiner also rejected claims 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-21 and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (b) as anticipated by Nozue. Independent claims 7,
11, 15, 19, and 24 are commensurate in scope with claim 1 with regard to
having (1) two steps (as in claim 7); (2) two levels (as in claims 11 and 15);
and (3) two tables (as in claims 19 and 24) that are utilized to protect
selected information. Thus, for similar reasons found above with regard to
representative claim 1, the rejection of (1) claim 7 and claims 8-9 which
depend therefrom; (2) claim 11 and claims 12-13 which depend therefrom;
(3) claim 15 and claims 16-17 which depend therefrom; (4) claim 19 and
claims 20-21 which depend therefrom; and (5) claim 24 is also reversed.
The Examiner also rejected dependent claims 5-6, 10, 14, 18, 22, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) over Nozue and Childs. As found above, we
are persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Nozue fails to teach the feature
of having two steps, levels, or tables for protecting selected information, as
Appeal 2008-004016
Application 09/825,905

8
recited in the independent claims. Thus, the absence of the foregoing
limitations from Nozue in the independent claims on appeal, i.e., claims 1, 7,
11, 15, and 19 overcomes the Examiner’s final conclusion of obviousness.
Further, we find that the Examiner did not rely on Childs to remedy the
deficiencies of Nozue. Therefore, we also reverse the obviousness rejection
of claims 5-6, 10, 14, 18, 22, and 23.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in rejecting claims 1-4, 7-9, 11-13, 15-17, 19-21, and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102 (b) and claims 5-6, 10, 14, 18, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections with respect to all claims on
appeal.

REVERSED

msc

WILLIAMS, MORGAN & AMERSON
10333 RICHMOND, SUITE 1100
HOUSTON, TX 77042