Ex Parte Berger et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2013

10013043 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2013)

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.
10/013,043 10/30/2001 Joubert Berger 10013500-1 7770
7590 01/28/2013
HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY
Intellectual Property Administration
P.O. Box 272400
Fort Collins, CO 80527-2400
EXAMINER
NAHAR, QAMRUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2198
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2013 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOUBERT BERGER, SCOTT A. LEERSSEN, and
CRAIG H. RUBIN
____________

Appeal 2010-011404
Application 10/013,043
Technology Center 2100
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011404
Application 10/013,043

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to installing an application in a trusted
environment. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method for installing an application in a trusted
operating system, comprising:

enabling selection of an application from one or more
applications;

enabling dragging of a graphical representation of said
selected application towards a graphical representation of a
compartment of said trusted operating system;

enabling dropping of said graphical representation of said
application on said graphical representation of said
compartment; and

automatically installing said selected application in said
selected compartment in response to said dropping of said
graphical representation of said selected application.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
McNabb

Bearden

US 6,289,462 B1

US 6,550,061 B1

Sept. 11, 2001

Apr. 15, 2003
(filed Dec. 2, 1999)

Appeal 2010-011404
Application 10/013,043

3
Franco

Andersen
US 6,687,745 B1

US 6,795,963 B1
Feb. 3, 2004
(filed June 22, 2000)

Sept. 21, 2004
(filed Nov. 12, 1999)

REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 9-19, and 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Franco and McNabb.
Claims 4, 5, 20, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Franco, McNabb, and Bearden.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Franco, McNabb, and Andersen.

ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3-5, 9-12, 14-17, 19-22, and 25
Appellants contend that the combination of Franco and McNabb fails
to disclose all the limitations of representative independent claim 1,
specifically, a graphical representation of a compartment of a trusted
operating system (App. Br. 12-13). Further, Appellants contend that neither
Franco nor McNabb discloses dragging and dropping an application onto
such a graphical representation of a compartment and automatically
installing the application in the compartment (id.). Appellants also contend
that there is insufficient motivation to combine Franco and McNabb (App.
Br. 10-12).
The Examiner relies on the collective teachings of the references to
disclose dragging an application “towards a graphical representation of a
compartment of said trusted operating system,” dropping the application “on
Appeal 2010-011404
Application 10/013,043

4
said graphical representation of said compartment,” and “automatically
installing said selected application in said selected compartment,” as recited
in claim 1 (Ans. 3-4, 11-13). Specifically, Franco discloses that droplets,
which are “dynamic and ‘thin’ applications” (Franco, col. 8, ll. 56-57), can
be dragged and dropped onto graphical representations of parts of an
operating system, for example, the desktop, the start menu, or a directory
(Franco, col. 14, ll. 50-61; col. 20, ll. 5-9). After such dragging and
dropping, the droplet application is available to perform its function, that is,
to connect to and invoke a remote droplet-enabled application (Franco, col.
16, ll. 41-52). McNabb discloses a trusted operating system with partitions,
or compartments (McNabb, col. 17, col. 49-57). Additionally, McNabb
suggests that a graphical utility can be used for working with the partitions
of the trusted operating system:
This system additionally provides a browser-based
administration tool to make system management
straightforward. . . . The browser-based tool can graphically
display a map of processes that are executed in response to
requests to assist the administrator in configuring processes for
a particular task. Descriptive information is provided such that
the administrator may trace the processes executed for a portion
of the processes performed in order to either view the history of
the processes executed or to test the application of sensitivity
levels to the processes. The system may also assist in the
definition of partitions where the processes may be segmented
by roles prior to actual partitioning of the system.

(McNabb, col. 21, ll. 34-48).
Appellants do not specifically explain why McNabb’s compartments
could not be represented graphically when combined with Franco’s
graphical operating system, as per the Examiner’s combination (see Ans. 3-
Appeal 2010-011404
Application 10/013,043

5
4, 12-13). Rather, Appellants argue that neither reference, individually,
discloses a graphical representation of a compartment of a trusted operating
system (see App. Br. 13). Absent argument addressing the collective
teachings of the references, we agree with the Examiner and find that one of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that McNabb’s trusted
operating system compartments could be represented graphically when
combined with Franco’s graphical operating system.
Appellants argue that “installing an application into a trusted
compartment is significantly more complex than simply dragging and
dropping files onto folders” (Reply Br. 6). However, Appellants have not
specifically explained why installation of an application into a compartment
of a trusted operating system is so complex that it could not be implemented
by Franco’s graphical drag and drop installation technique.
Each of McNabb’s compartments is defined by the processes, files,
and resources that have the same “sensitivity label” (see McNabb, col. 17, ll.
52-55). While access to a compartment requires determining whether a
process has the requisite sensitivity label (see McNabb, col. 14, ll. 49-52),
this extra step is merely an extension of the standard operating system
mechanism of allowing or denying access to a file system object based on
the security attributes of the process (McNabb, col. 8., l. 54-col. 9, l. 10).
Absent specific argument to the contrary, the fact that McNabb’s
trusted operating system requires an additional security attribute would not
preclude using Franco’s technique on McNabb’s compartment. Thus, we
are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination of
Franco and McNabb discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Appeal 2010-011404
Application 10/013,043

6
We are also not persuaded that the Examiner’s motivation to combine
the references is insufficient, as Appellants argue (App. Br. 10-12).
McNabb discloses installing the trusted operating system as an upgrade to an
existing operating system so as to increase security (McNabb, col. 4, 20-32),
or in other words, “to provide the level of assurance” necessary for certain
functions (McNabb, col. 17, ll. 49-52). We agree with the Examiner (Ans.
11) and find that it would have been obvious, in view of McNabb’s
teachings, to compartmentalize the operating system of Franco’s computer
to provide additional security.
Although Appellants argue that to provide a level of assurances is just
a result without a motivation (App. Br. 11), we find that achieving such a
result is itself a motivation to apply McNabb’s techniques to Franco.
Appellants have not specifically explained why one of ordinary skill in the
art would not have wanted to provide additional security in Franco’s
computer by installing applications in compartments.
Appellants also argue that the combination is based on impermissible
hindsight (App. Br. 11). However, the Examiner’s motivation to combine is
found in McNabb, which indicates that the combination was not based on
hindsight, but on knowledge available at the time the invention was made.
See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
Appellants further argue that the Examiner does not explain how to
make the combination of Franco and McNabb, and that “such a combination
would require a substantial reconstruction and redesign of the elements
shown in Franco” (App. Br. 11-12). However, as mentioned above,
McNabb discloses that a compartmentalized trusted operating system can be
installed as an upgrade to an existing operating system:
Appeal 2010-011404
Application 10/013,043

7
Rather than requiring administrators to replace the operating
system altogether (as with all other prior art trusted operating
systems), the trusted operating system of the desired system
should have enhancements that are installed as a system
upgrade. This maintains 100% compatibility with the
underlying operating system API, drastically reducing the
costly and time-consuming integration work typically
associated with systems of this type.

(McNabb, col. 4, ll. 25-32). Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s
motivation to combine the references was in error.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 3 and 9-11 which depend therefrom and are not
separately argued. Although Appellants nominally argue claims 4, 5, 12, 14-
17, 19-22, and 25 separately, the arguments presented are similar to those
presented for claim 1. Thus, the rejections of claims 4, 5, 12, 14-17, 19-22,
and 25 are also sustained for the reasons discussed above.

Claims 2, 6-8, 13, 18, 23, and 24
Although Appellants argue that the combination of Franco and
McNabb fails to disclose the limitations of claim 2 (App. Br. 14), Appellants
do not provide an explanation as to why the Examiner’s specific findings
(Ans. 4) are incorrect or insufficient. Absent such explanation to weigh
against them, we are not persuaded that these findings are in error. See Ex
Parte Belinne, 2009 WL 2477843 (BPAI 2009) (“Informative”).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 2, and claims 6-8 which depend therefrom and are not separately
argued. Although Appellants nominally argue claims 13, 18, 23, and 24
separately, the arguments presented are similar to those presented for claim
Appeal 2010-011404
Application 10/013,043

8
2. Thus, the rejections of claims 13, 18, 23, and 24 are also sustained for the
reasons discussed above.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejections of claims 1-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tkl