Ex Parte ORAM

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 13, 2016

12269621 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/269,621 11112/2008
101539 7590
Sullivan and Worcester
1666 K Street Suite 700
W asington, DC 20006
04/15/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas K. ORAM
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.
21204.0086US 1681
EXAMINER
MILLER, VIV AL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2197
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/15/2016 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):
docketing@sandw.com
cmcwhinney@sandw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS K. ORAM
Appeal2014-005858
Application 12/269,621
Technology Center 2100
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JOHN D. HAMANN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005858
Application 12/269,621
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 1-34. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We
reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 is exemplary and reads as follows, with emphasis
added:
1. A method of generating a random number, the method comprising:
determining whether a new seed is required based at least in
part on at least one factor selected from the group consisting of a
quantity of random numbers that have been generated since a most
recent re-seeding and a time interval that has elapsed since the most
recent reseeding; and
conditioned on determining that the new seed is required,
requesting an auditable random number from an auditable random
number generator;
receiving a request from a game terminal for a random number;
applying the pseudo-random number generator to generate a
random number based at least in part on the auditable random number
from the auditable random number generator; and
transmitting information based on the random number to
the game terminal.
Examiner's Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-7, 10-30, and 32-34 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kelly et al. (US
2003/0069910 Al; published Apr. 10, 2003), Gatto et al. (US 2005/0054445
2
Appeal2014-005858
Application 12/269,621
Al; published Mar. 10, 2005), and Szrek et al. (US 2004/0141611 Al;
published July 22, 2004). Ans. 2-19; Final Act. 5-22.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 8, 9, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kelly, Gatto, Szrek, and
Berg (US 5,779,545; issued July 14, 1998). Ans. 19-20; Final Act. 22-23.
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 16-24; Reply Br. 2-6), the
following issue is presented for appealDid the Examiner err in rejecting
claims 1-7, 10-30, and 32-34 as being obvious because the combination of
Kelly, Gatto, and Szrek fails to teach or suggest, among other things,
"determining whether a new seed is required based at least in part on at least
one factor selected from the group consisting of a quantity of random
numbers that have been generated since a most recent re-seeding," as recited
in independent claim, 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 21
and 32?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Briefs (App. Br. 16-
24; Reply Br. 2--6) that the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-34 (Ans. 2-20;
Final Act. 5-23) is in error, and the Examiner's response to Appellant's
arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 21-27). We concur with Appellant's
contentions (App. Br. 16-24; Reply Br. 2--6) that the Examiner erred.
Claims 1-7, 10-30, and 32-34
We agree with Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 16-24; Reply Br. 2-
6) that the combination of Kelly, Gatto, and Szrek fails to teach or suggest,
among other things, "determining whether a new seed is required based at
3
Appeal2014-005858
Application 12/269,621
least in part on at least one factor selected from the group consisting of a
quantity of random numbers that have been generated since a most recent re-
seeding," as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in
independent claims 21 and 32.
Although Kelly does disclose (i-fi-f 18, 19, 21) generating a seed and
loading the seed to a random number generator during initialization, the
Examiner has failed to show Kelly discloses a determination as to whether a
new seed is required based at least in part on a quantity of random numbers
that have been generated since a most recent re-seeding. We disagree with
the Examiner's finding that Kelly discloses the determination step by
determining whether additional bits are needed to complete the seed (Ans.
21-22). The step of determining whether additional bits are necessary to fill
the seed register is a separate determination than whether a new seed
(typically composed of hundreds of bits, see Kelly, i122) should be created
in the first place. Because Kelly's disclosure relates only to an initialization
procedure, which always requires a new seed to be generated, the Examiner
has failed to show that Kelly discloses a determination of whether a new
seed is required.
The Examiner has not shown that Gatto nor Szrek teaches the
disputed limitation. Thus the Examiner has not shown that the combination
of references teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 1-
7, 10-30, and 32-34 based upon the combination of Kelly, Gatto, and Szrek.
Claims 8, 9, and 31
Claims 8, 9, and 31 were rejected over the combination of Kelly,
Gatto, Szrek, and Berg. In light of our findings that the combination of
4
Appeal2014-005858
Application 12/269,621
Kelly, Gatto, and Szrek fails to disclose each and every limitation of
independent claims 1, 21, and 32, we further find that the Examiner erred in
rejecting dependent claims 8 and 9, which depend from independent claim 1,
and dependent claim 31, which depends from independent claim 21.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 8,
9, and 31 over the combination of Kelly, Gatto, Szrek, and Berg.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 10-30, and 32-34 as
being obvious over the combination of Kelly, Gatto, and Szrek.
(2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 9, and 31 as being
obvious over the combination of Kelly, Gatto, Szrek, and Berg.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-34 are reversed.
REVERSED
5