Ex Parte Yan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2014

11889600 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ZHENG YAN and CHRISTIAN PREHOFER
____________

Appeal 2012-008934
Application 11/889,600
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-008934
Application 11/889,600

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner finally rejected claims 1, 2, 21–24, 48, and 51. Claims
3–20, 25–47, 49, 50, 52, and 53 were cancelled during prosecution.
Appellants appeal from the final rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
This invention relates to "autonomic trust management for a
trustworthy system." (Title). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. A trust management method, comprising:
[a] determining at a trust management framework whether a
system comprises a competence to manage a trustee, wherein
the competence comprises at least one trust control mode
supported by the system to ensure a trustworthiness of the
trustee;
[b] based on the competence, generating a number of different
trust control modes at the trust management framework to be
applied by the system to manage the trustworthiness of the
trustee and to provide an autonomic adaptation of the applied
trust control modes to ensure a dynamic changed trust
relationship; and
[c] [c1] based on the trust control modes generated, [c2]
generating and adjusting at the trust management framework
[c3] at least one trust control model profile associated with the
trustor and the trustee [c4] to perform autonomic trust
management.
(Contestested limitations emphasized, elements lettered).
Appeal 2012-008934
Application 11/889,600

3
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 21–24, 48, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(e)
as being anticipated by U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0184203 A1 to Yan (hereinafter
"Yan").

GROUPING OF CLAIMS
Based on Appellants' arguments, we decide the appeal of:
The rejection of claims: on the basis of representative claim:
claims 1, 21–23, 48, and 51 (App.
Br. 9-14).
1
claims 2 and 24 (App. Br. 14) 2
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2004).1
ANALYSIS
We consider all of Appellants' arguments and evidence presented. We
disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's rejection of
the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments
made in Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 7-8). We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments below:

1 Appellants filed a Notice of Appeal on Oct. 3, 2011. The date of filing the
Notice of Appeal determines which set of rules applies to an Ex Parte
appeal. If a Notice of Appeal is filed prior to January 23, 2012, then the
2004 version of the Board Rules last published in the 2011 edition of Title
37 of the Code of Federal Regulations (37 C.F.R. § 41.1 et seq.) applies to
the appeal. See also Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 8th
ed., Rev. 8, July 2010.
Appeal 2012-008934
Application 11/889,600

4
R1. CLAIM 1
A.
Claim 1 recites in pertinent part:
[c2] generating and adjusting at the trust management
framework [c3] at least one trust control model profile
associated with the trustor and the trustee [c4] to perform
autonomic trust management.
Appellants contend: "Yan's 'composing' in paragraph [0104] merely
refers to composing a service profile with specifications such as resource
requirements from different service profiles." (Reply Br. 7; App. Br. 11).
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive because Appellants do not
address and rebut the full cited description in Yan in view of the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim. Specifically, the Examiner finds that
Yan's trust model profile (410; Fig. 4), including services 415, service level
profiles 420, resource requirements 422, composition rules, and
specifications, discloses the contested [c3] limitation: "one trust control
model profile." (Ans. 7; see Yan ¶104, ¶25).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Yan's composing a trust
model profile with a new service profile discloses the broadest reasonable
interpretation of limitations: [c2] "generating and adjusting . . . " and [c3]
"one trust control model profile." (Ans. 5; Yan ¶¶104-108). Specifically,
Yan's composing includes "generating" a different trust model profile by
adding/composing new service profiles 420 using the composition rules.
(Ans. 5, 7; Yan ¶104; Fig. 4).2 Yan's composing includes "generating and

2 Yan describes:
Appeal 2012-008934
Application 11/889,600

5
adjusting" the different trust model profile by modifying the new service
profiles 420 using the composition rules to include resource requirements
(¶104, ¶106), performance specifications (¶104, ¶107) and/or trust level
specifications (¶104, ¶108). (Ans. 5, 7; Fig. 4; see ¶142). An example of
Yan's composing ("generating and adjusting") of a trust model profile is
shown in Figure 6, where the trust model is generated and adjusted in steps
630 and 640. (Yan ¶¶131-142; Fig. 6; ¶142). For these reasons, on this
record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
B.
Claim 1 recites in pertinent part:
[b] based on the competence, generating a number of different
trust control modes at the trust management framework to be
applied by the system to manage the trustworthiness of the
trustee and to provide an autonomic adaptation of the applied
trust control modes to ensure a dynamic changed trust
relationship;
. . .
[c3] "at least one trust control model profile . . . [c4] to
perform autonomic trust management,"

Furthermore, a service profile 420 may indicate a trust priority
level 423 and composition rules 425 for composing the above
items from different service profiles together.
[0105] Said composition rule 425 may specify composition
policies for composing resource consumption, and/or
performance, and/or trust priority level in different situations.
Said composition rule may be different for different
specifications and scenarios.
(Yan ¶ ¶104-105).
Appeal 2012-008934
Application 11/889,600

6
Appellants contend:
Yan remains silent with respect to the claim 1 "autonomic trust
management," so Yan's composing cannot possibly teach
"generating and adjusting ... at least one trust control model
profile associated with the trustor and the trustee to perform
autonomic trust management."
(Emphasis added; Reply Br. 7).
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive because Appellants fail to
address and rebut the Examiner's finding that Yan discloses the "autonomic
trust management" in limitation [b]: "manage the trustworthiness of the
trustee and to provide an autonomic adaptation of the applied trust control
modes . . . ." Specifically, the Examiner finds Yan's resource requirements
and performance specifications of the trust model profile disclose limitation
[b]'s trust control nodes which [c4] "perform autonomic trust management",
as required in limitation [b]. (Emphasis added; Final Rejection mailed Aug.
22, 2011, page 2; Ans. 5).
Furthermore, we conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claimed [c3] "trust management" covers Yan’s management of the
availability and reliability of systems and software components since a
reliable component is trustworthy. (See e.g., Yan ¶2, last sentence).
Contrary to Appellants' contentions (Reply Br. 5), Yan's control profiles'
resource requirements, specifications, composition rules, and trust priority
levels [c4] "perform automatic trust management" by managing the
availability and reliability of the system and software components. (Ans. 5,
7; Yan ¶¶88-90; Fig. 1a, 1b, ¶¶104-108; ¶142).
C.
For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred. Accordingly, we sustain the anticipation rejection of representative
Appeal 2012-008934
Application 11/889,600

7
claim 1, and the rejected grouped claims which fall therewith. (See
Grouping of Claims, supra).
CLAIM 2
Claim 2 recites: "[t]he trust management method as recited in
claim 1, wherein the at least one trust control mode comprises at least one of
encryption, authentication, hash code based integrity check, access control
mechanisms, duplication of process, and man-in-middle solution for
improving availability."
Appellants contend:
As described by Yan, the specifications and resource
requirements include only memory requirements, CPU
requirements, response time, uptime, mean time before failure,
and trust priority requirements (see, for example, Yan at
paragraphs [0011]-[0013]). Nowhere in paragraphs [0011]-
[0013], [0093], or anywhere else in Yan does Yan disclose any
of the [] features recited in claims 2 and 24[.]
(Reply Br. 9)
Appellants' contentions are unpersuasive because Appellants do not
address and rebut the full cited description in Yan in view of the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claim. First, Yan's system's control nodes
(set by the resource requirements and specifications) are implemented on
middle ware (Fig. 3, layers 320, 333), which we find discloses the broadest
reasonable interpretation of the claimed "man-in-middle solution for
improving availability." As discussed above, the resource requirements and
specifications improve reliability which "improv[es] availability." (Ans. 6,
¶93; Uptime).
Second, Yan's specifications, including the trust level Specification,
trust priority requirements and trust priority levels disclose at least the
Appeal 2012-008934
Application 11/889,600

8
claimed "access control mechanisms" recited in claim 2. Specifically, Yan's
trust priority levels (¶30) control the access to the resource so that a higher
level trust priority gets higher priority access, thus disclosing the claimed
"access control mechanism."
For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred. Accordingly, we sustain rejection of representative claim 2, and
grouped claim 24 that falls therewith. (See Grouping of Claims, supra).

DECISION 3
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 21–24, 48, and 51
under § 102.
No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be
extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

lv

3 In the event of further prosecution of this application, we leave it to the
Examiner to review the claims for compliance under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in light
of the recently issued preliminary examination instructions on patent eligible
subject matter. See “Preliminary Examination Instructions in view of the
Supreme Court Decision in Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank
International, et al.,” Memorandum to the Examining Corps, June 25, 2014.
Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 1213.02.