Ex Parte Asokan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 2, 201511128676 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 2, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte NADARAJAH ASOKAN, JAN-ERIK EKBERG and LAURI PAATERO ___________ Appeal 2012-009716 Application 11/128,676 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We reverse. Introduction The invention is directed to providing integrity-protected secure storage relating to state maintenance on a portable device. Specification 1. Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A device which comprises: Appeal 2012-009716 Application 11/128,676 2 a first integrated circuitry configured to form a first trust zone, the first integrated circuitry comprising a secure processor; and a second integrated circuitry separate from the circuitry configured to form a second trust zone, the second integrated circuitry comprising a secure volatile storage within the second trust zone, wherein the secure processor is configured to communicate information from the first trust zone to the second trust zone in a secure manner for the secure information to be securely stored in the secure non-volatile storage; the second integrated circuitry is configured to communicate information stored in its secure non-volatile storage from the second trust zone to the secure processor within the first trust zone in a secure manner; and wherein said first integrated circuitry and said second integrated circuitry are internal parts of the device, and information transmitted from the first integrated circuitry to the second integrated circuitry is stored in the second integrated circuitry and the same information stored in the second integrated circuitry is transmitted from the second integrated circuitry to the first integrated circuitry. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-19, 21 and 23-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as being anticipated by Paksoy (US Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0129848 A1; published June 15, 2006). Answer 4-7. Appeal 2012-009716 Application 11/128,676 3 Claims 3 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Paksoy and Asokan (US Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0146163 A1; published July 29, 2004). Answer 7-8. Claims 8 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Paksoy and Raith (US Patent Number 6,510,515 B1; issued January 21, 2003). Answer 8. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Paksoy and Kilpatrick (US Patent Number 5,875,465; issued February 23, 1999). Answer 9. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 24, 2012) and the Answer (mailed March 21, 2012), and the Reply Brief (filed May 21, 2012) for their respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Anticipation Rejection Appellants contend “Paksoy does not disclose or suggest ‘information transmitted from the first integrated circuitry to the second integrated circuitry is stored in the second integrated circuitry, and the same information stored in the second integrated circuitry is transmitted from the second integrated circuitry to the first integrated circuitry.’” Appeal Brief 33. Appellants further contend Paksoy discloses, “The information transmitted from the apps processor to the modem processor (the SIM personalization) is different from the information transmitted from the modem processor to the apps processor (the session key).” Appeal Brief 33. Appeal 2012-009716 Application 11/128,676 4 The Examiner finds Paksoy anticipates the invention recited in claim 1. Answer 4-5. However, the Examiner fails to establish that Paksoy actually anticipates the invention because there is no mapping of the claim limitations to Paksoy’s disclosure. The Examiner cites to Paksoy’s Figure 3 as well as paragraphs [0077] and [0032] however, there is no direct mapping of the claim limitations to Paksoy’s components. 1 See Answer 4-6. We are constrained by the record or lack thereof and therefore we do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. The anticipation rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-19, 21 and 23-27 is reversed. Obviousness Rejections Appellants contend Paksoy fails to disclose wherein the same information stored in the second integrated circuitry is transmitted from the second integrated circuitry to the first integrated circuitry as required by claim 22. Appeal Brief 56. The Examiner finds: [W]herein the modem processor generates a session key, encrypts the session key with the public key of the apps processor and transmits the encrypted session key to the apps processor where it is decrypted and used to encrypted SIM personalization data that is transmitted to the modem processor ([0077]), which meets the limitation of distributing the secure key to be shared between the first integrated circuit and the second integrated circuitry, wherein the information transmitted from the first integrated circuitry to the second integrated circuitry is stored in the second integrated circuitry, and the same information stored in the second integrated circuitry is 1 “‘For a prior art reference to anticipate in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 102, every element of the claimed invention must be identically shown in a single reference.’” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (quoting Diversitech Corp. v. Century Steps, Inc., 850 F.2d 675, 677 (Fed.Cir.1988)). Appeal 2012-009716 Application 11/128,676 5 transmitted from the second integrated circuitry to the first integrated circuitry. Answer 7-8. Appellants further assert Paksoy discloses the transmitted information is different because Paksoy discloses: [A] session key is encrypted with the public key of the apps processor and is transmitted from the modern processor to the apps processor, and the SIM personalization data is encrypted with the session key and transmitted from the apps processor to the modern processor. The information transmitted from the apps processor to the modem processor (the SIM personalization) is different from the information transmitted from the modem processor to the apps processor (the session key). Appeal Brief 56-57. Appellants also argue Asokan fails to address Paksoy’s deficiency. Appeal Brief 58. We find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive and therefore we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 22 for the reasons articulated above. The obviousness rejections of claims 3, 8, 9 and 13 are reversed because they are ultimately dependent upon claim 1. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) rejection of claim 1, 2, 4-7, 10-12, 14-19, 21 and 23-27 is reversed. The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 3, 8, 9, 13 and 22 are reversed. REVERSED Ssc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation