Lenovo (Beijing) Limited

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 27, 2021

2020003415 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 27, 2021)

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.
15/087,772 03/31/2016 Zhiyang Zhao CN920160012USNP(930.022) 4627
58127 7590 08/27/2021
FERENCE & ASSOCIATES LLC
409 BROAD STREET
PITTSBURGH, PA 15143
EXAMINER
JHAVERI, JAYESH M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/27/2021 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIYANG ZHAO, LIANGLIANG WANG, and FENG GAO
Appeal 2020-003415
Application 15/087,772
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–16. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a).
Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Lenovo (Singapore) PTE.
LTD. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-003415
Application 15/087,772

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to providing multiple execution environments
in electronic devices to enhance application security. Spec. ¶ 19. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a processor;
a memory device that stores instructions executable by the
processor to:
detect initiation of an application;
determine a security level for running the application;
select a security environment for the application from a
plurality of security environments based on the determined
security level, wherein each of the plurality of security
environments provide different security levels and comprise
rules for processing data associated with the application based on
the determined security level, wherein the security environment
is a digital security environment; and
run the application in the selected security environment.
Appeal Br. 19 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES2
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Smith US 2016/0248809 A1 Aug. 25, 2016
Harrison US 2008/0031456 A1 Feb. 7, 2008
Dietze US 2016/0072825 A1 Mar. 10, 2016

2 Citations to the references are to the first named inventor/author only.
Appeal 2020-003415
Application 15/087,772

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
being anticipated by Smith. Final Act. 6–8.
Claims 3–7 and 11–15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith and Harrison. Final Act. 9–11.
Claims 8 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Smith, Harrison, and Dietze. Final Act. 11.
ISSUE
Has the Examiner erred in finding Smith discloses “select a security
environment for the application from a plurality of security environments
based on the determined security level . . . wherein the security environment
is a digital security environment,” as recited in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner rejects claim 1 as anticipated by Smith. Final Act. 6–8.
The Examiner finds:
Smith discloses that a determined level of security for the
application (such as applications in Fig. 1, elements 122 or 124
together with application data processor element 120, and Fig. 2
elements 210 or 212) that has been classified at one or more
security levels (para. 0036–0037, 0058), leads to provisioning or
selecting environment components that enforce necessary
security as per the security level in order to provide a trusted
execution environment for execution of that application (para
0035–0037, 0046–0048), wherein the act of “select[ing] a
security environment” . . . is a combination of steps including
considering security level and policy, and instantiating/selecting
a secure trusted execution environment (corresponding to the
claimed “security environment”).
Appeal 2020-003415
Application 15/087,772

4
Ans. 7–8. The Examiner further explains that Smith ¶ 48 discloses “that an
instantiation or selection of certain trusted execution environment
(corresponding to the claimed ‘security environment’) takes place based on
security level associated with the application, in order to provide the secure
environment for the application.” Ans. 8 (citing Smith ¶ 48).
Appellant argues the Examiner has erred because “Smith is generally
directed to the dynamic adjustment of a security policy for a device based
upon a detected physical location, or ‘security environment’ of the device.”
Appeal Br. 15 (citing Smith Abstract, ¶¶ 16–19). Appellant further argues
that “[a]s repeatedly and explicitly defined in Smith, ‘security environment’
literally refers to a physical environment.” Appeal Br. 15 (citing Smith
¶ 19). Appellant argues the disclosure of Smith differs from the claim
because in the claimed embodiments, “each application may contain an
assigned security level . . . and based upon that determined security level . . .
may manage access to content in that application using a particular security
environment (e.g., more strict . . . for banking vs. less strict . . . for screen
unlock application).” Appeal Br. 16. Appellant further asserts the Examiner
“is improperly expanding the meaning of ‘digital security environment’ to
physical environments” such as Smith because “the term ‘security
environment’, as used in the claims and viewed in light of the underlying
specification, can only reasonably be interpreted as applying to application
security.” Appeal Br. 17.
We are not persuaded of error. Appellant’s argument focuses on the
differences between the “security environment” disclosed and described in
Smith and the claimed “security environment.” That is, the crux of
Appellant’s argument is that what Smith refers to as a “security
Appeal 2020-003415
Application 15/087,772

5
environment” is a physical environment (such as a specific location) and not
a computer application security environment. However, as explained in the
Answer, the “Examiner does not directly map the claimed ‘security
environment’ to Smith’s ‘security environment’ definition even though
Smith discloses the identical term ‘security environment.” Ans. 7. Instead,
the Examiner finds that Smith’s description of instantiating a secure trusted
execution environment for an application discloses “select[ing] a security
environment for the application . . . wherein the security environment is a
digital security environment.” Ans. 7–8. We agree with the Examiner’s
findings.
Smith discloses the use of a security policy that “includes a set of
security level definitions.” Smith ¶ 33. Smith discloses a trusted execution
environment in which applications may be executed. See Smith Fig. 2, item
202a. The trusted execution environment is described as “a secure area of a
processor that ensures that sensitive data is stored, processed, and protected
in a trusted environment.” Smith ¶ 23. We agree with the Examiner that
Smith’s trusted execution environment discloses the recited “security
environment” and is a “digital security environment” because it exists within
a secure data processor. Smith ¶ 45 (“The example secure data processor
136 includes one or more secure execution environments in which
computing instructions may be executed and/or data may be stored in a
protected manner (e.g., secure from interception, unauthorized access, or
unauthorized use).”). Smith further discloses that the secure execution
environment is selected “in response to a determination . . . that a particular
security level is to be applied” (Smith ¶ 48), and is therefore selected “from
Appeal 2020-003415
Application 15/087,772

6
a plurality of security environments based on the determined security level,”
as recited in claim 1.
Even accepting Appellant’s proffered definition of the phrase
“security environment,” as applying to application security and not a
physical location or environment, we agree with the Examiner that Smith
discloses the recited “security environment.” As such, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred in finding Smith discloses each and every limitation
recited in the method of claim 1, and we sustain the rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Remaining Claims
Appellant presents no separate arguments for patentability of any
other claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of these
claims for the reasons stated with respect to the independent claims from
which they depend. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 9, 10 102(a)(2) Smith 1, 2, 9, 10
3–7, 11–15 103 Smith, Harrison 3–7, 11–15
8, 16 103 Smith, Harrison,
Dietz
8, 16
Overall
Outcome
1–16

Appeal 2020-003415
Application 15/087,772

7
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED