Ex Parte Woodward et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

14579705 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/579,705 12/22/2014
23505 7590 03/26/2018
CONLEY ROSE, P.C.
575 N. Dairy Ashford Road
Suite 1102
HOUSTON, TX 77079
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert A. Woodward
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.
7071-13400 4897
EXAMINER
PEARSON, DAVID J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
pathou@conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT A. WOODWARD, DANIEL M. HERRING,
and ANDREW W. HULL
Appeal2017-009542
Application 14/579,705
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-8 and 22-25, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appeal2017-009542
Application 14/579,705
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to user
interfaces in vehicle systems. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A system comprising:
a first processor;
a non-volatile random access memory coupled to the first
processor, the non-volatile random access memory storing
program instructions for execution by the first processor, the
programming instructions stored only in encrypted form;
an encryption engine coupled to the first processor and
coupled to the non-volatile random access memory;
a bridge logic device coupled to the first processor and
configured to couple to an external peripheral network bus; and
wherein the encryption engine is configured to decrypt
software program instructions stored in the non-volatile random
access memory for execution by the first processor.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6-8, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Jauch (US 2012/0303177; Nov. 9, 2012) and Iguchi
(US 2002/0169960; Nov. 14, 2002).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jauch, Iguchi, and Bertram (US 8,904,556 Bl; Dec. 2, 2014).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Jauch, Iguchi, and Leebow (US 2012/0180507 Al; July 19, 2012).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants'
2
Appeal2017-009542
Application 14/579,705
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the cited portions of Jauch and
Iguchi collectively teach "an encryption engine coupled to the first processor
and coupled to the non-volatile random access memory; ... wherein the
encryption engine is configured to decrypt software program instructions
stored in the non-volatile random access memory for execution by the first
processor," as recited in independent claim 1 (emphases added). 1 See App.
Br. 17-20; Reply Br. 7-10.
The Examiner finds "Jauch differs from the claimed invention in that
they fail to teach" the above limitations. Final Act. 3. The Examiner then
cites Iguchi, and maps the claimed "encryption engine" to Iguchi's
encryption processing circuit 126. See Final Act. 4; Ans. 9-10.
Iguchi describes the encryption processing circuit 126 as follows:
"the encryption processing circuit 126 in the storage device 120 generates
KS5 by using a random number or the like[.]" Iguchi i-f 117; see also Iguchi
i-f 124 ("the session key KS5 generated by the encryption processing circuit
126"); Iguchi i-f 41("The CPU 128 uses an encryption processing circuit 126
in order to perform an encryption processing inside the storage device
120.").
The Examiner does not cite any Iguchi portion that teaches the
encryption processing circuit 126 "is configured to decrypt software
program instructions," as required by claim 1. Instead, Iguchi teaches "the
CPU 128 decrypts the application program with the use of KM 151 and the
KM-compliant encryption processing program 152 [. ]" Iguchi i-f 51. As
shown in Iguchi's Figure 1, the encryption processing circuit 126 is separate
1 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal2017-009542
Application 14/579,705
from any of CPU 128, KM 151, or the KM-compliant encryption processing
program 152. See Iguchi, Fig. 1. Therefore, absent further explanation, the
Examiner has not persuaded us that Iguchi teaches "an encryption engine
coupled to the first processor and coupled to the non-volatile random access
memory; ... wherein the encryption engine is configured to decrypt
software program instructions stored in the non-volatile random access
memory for execution by the first processor," as required by claim 1
(emphases added), based on the Examiner's mapping.
Further, as applied by the Examiner, the teachings of Jauch do not
remedy the deficiencies of Iguchi discussed above. See Final Act. 3--4.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
We also reverse the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 2-8 and 22-25. Although the Examiner cites additional references
for rejecting some dependent claims, the Examiner has not shown the
additional references overcome the deficiency discussed above regarding the
rejection of claim 1.
We note we reverse the rejection based on the Examiner's findings in
the record. If the prosecution reopens, we leave it to the Examiner to
determine whether the claimed "encryption engine" encompasses Iguchi' s
CPU and Iguchi' s CPU "is configured to decrypt software program
instructions," as required by claim 1.
4
Appeal2017-009542
Application 14/579,705
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 22-25.
REVERSED
5