Ex Parte Parnell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 14, 2014

11552679 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 14, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVID R. PARNELL
____________

Appeal 2012-001963
Application 11/552,679
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
J. JOHN LEE, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-001963
Application 11/552,679

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1-5 and 7-20. Claim 6 has been cancelled. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal and recites:
1. Apparatus for archiving front-end user data of a front-end
user in electronic form at a back-end facility maintained by a
facility operator, said apparatus comprising:
a storage device positioned at the back-end facility, said
storage device configured selectably to store the front-end user
data at an electronic security box formed selectably at said
storage device and to permit access thereto;
a trusted data manager controller positionable in
communication connectivity with the facility operator, said
trusted data manager controller configured to cause creation of
the electronic security box formed at said storage device and to
cause selection of access parameters that define access criteria
provided for access to the data stored thereat;
wherein a trusted data manager operator operates said
trusted data manager controller and wherein said trusted data
manager controller is configured to be positioned remote from
the trusted data manager operator; and
wherein said facility operator and the trusted data
manager operator comprise separate entities.

1 Appellant identifies Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP, HPQ
Holdings, LLC, and Hewlett-Packard Company as the real parties in interest.
(App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2012-001963
Application 11/552,679

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-5 and 7-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Burges (US 2002/0046188 A1) and Rohani (US
2007/0112937 A1).

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding that the combination
of Burges and Rohani teaches or suggests each of the limitations of the
claims. Specifically, Appellant argues the Examiner erroneously found that
Rohani teaches that “a trusted data manager operator operates said trusted
data manager controller” and that “said facility operator and the trusted data
manager operator comprise separate entities,” as recited in claim 1. (App.
Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 1-2.) We are not persuaded the Examiner erred.
The Examiner found that Burges teaches “a back-end facility
maintained by a facility operator” and “a storage device positioned at the
back-end facility” with “an electronic security box,” as recited in claim 1.
(Ans. 3-4.) To support that finding, the Examiner relied on Figure 1 of
Burges, which depicts a “Vault Secure Operations Centre” (i.e., a back-end
facility) that includes “Secure Tender Boxes” (i.e., electronic security boxes)
as well as a “Vault Administrator” (i.e., a facility operator). (Burges, fig. 1.)
Burges discloses that the “Secure Tender Boxes” reside on a “disk storage
space 20” (i.e., a storage device positioned at the back-end facility). (Id.,
abstract & fig. 1.)
In addition, the Examiner found that Rohani teaches a “trusted data
manager operator” that operates a “trusted data manager controller,” as
recited in claim 1. (Ans. 5, 16-18.) As the Examiner found, Rohani teaches
Appeal 2012-001963
Application 11/552,679

4
a controller 102 (i.e., a trusted data manager controller) that controls reading
and writing to and from storage devices 104-112. (Rohani, fig. 1, ¶¶ 5, 14.)
Rohani further teaches that “[o]ne or more controllers may be operably
coupled to one or more other controllers in the storage system” such that a
controller may “communicate to one or more other controllers to transfer
data or data banks from one location to another.” (Id., ¶¶ 5, 17.) The
Examiner reasoned that in such a configuration, the first controller acts as
the recited “trusted data manager operator” that “operates” the second
controller. (Ans. 17-18.)
Further, the Examiner noted Rohani teaches that the first controller
(trusted data manager operator), the second controller it operates (trusted
data manager controller), and the storage devices managed by that second
controller (storage devices at a back-end facility) are all separate entities.
(Ans. 16-17; see Rohani, ¶¶ 17-18.) When combined with the teachings of
Burges (e.g., a back-end facility with storage devices maintained by a
facility operator), the Examiner concluded the claim as a whole would be
obvious to a person of ordinary skill. (Ans. 4-5.) We agree. Consequently,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant does not
separately argue the patentability of claims 2, 4, 5, and 7-20. (See App. Br.
11-12.) Thus, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.
Appellant separately argues the patentability of claim 3, contending
the Examiner erred in finding that the cited prior art teaches that the recited
back-end facility is “a physically isolated facility, isolated physically from
said trusted data manager controller.” (App. Br. 13.) However, as discussed
supra, we agree with the Examiner’s finding, for example, Rohani teaches
that the storage devices are physically separated from the controller. (Ans.
Appeal 2012-001963
Application 11/552,679

5
16-17; see Rohani, ¶¶ 17-18.) Appellant does not address these teachings of
Rohani in either the Appeal Brief or the Reply Brief. As a result, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred, and we sustain the rejection of claim 3.

DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the cited prior art references.
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

msc