Ex Parte Porter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 15, 2012

10157700 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 15, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ALLEN J.C. PORTER and DAVID A. STRASSER ____________ Appeal 2010-004814 Application 10/157,700 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004814 Application 10/157,700 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 17-31 and 39-44 (App. Br. 2). Claims 1-16 and 32-38 were withdrawn (id. at 1). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The Invention Exemplary Claim 17 follows: 17. A method comprising the steps of: receiving first data from a source through a first port; providing a direct representation of the first data to a first module over a first bus that is viewable; receiving second data from the source through the first port; and providing a decrypted representation of at least a portion of the second data to the first module over a second bus, through a second port that is not viewable. The Examiner rejected claims 17-21, 28-31, and 39-44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gammie (U.S. Patent No. 5,237,610) in view Official Notice (Ans. 4-13). The Examiner rejected claims 22-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gammie in view of Official Notice and Shear (U.S. Patent No.7,120,802 B1) (Ans. 13-18). The Examiner rejected claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gammie in view of Official Notice and Handbook (A. Appeal 2010-004814 Application 10/157,700 3 MENEZES ET. AL., THE HANDBOOK OF APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY, CRC Press, chapter 8, 283-319 (1996)) (Ans. 18-19). ISSUE Appellants’ responses to the Examiner’s positions present the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Gammie and Official Notice teaches or suggests providing a direct representation of first data from a source over a first viewable bus and a decrypted representation of second data from the same source over a second non-viewable bus, as required by independent claims 17 and 39? ANALYSIS Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 17 and 39 as obvious because the combination of Gammie and Official Notice does not teach or suggest “that a direct representation of first data is provided from a source to a first module via a first bus that is viewable and that a decrypted representation of at least a portion of second data is provided from that same source to the same first module via a second bus through a second port that is not viewable” (App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted); see also id. at 10). The Examiner gave “Official Notice that unencrypted broadcasts were well know[n] at the time of invention was made [sic]” (Ans. 5). The Examiner then reasoned that “it would have been obvious to incorporated [sic] the ability to display unsecured content into the method of Gammie et a. in order to not make unavailable the freely available content being broadcasted” (id.). In response, Appellants argue that “the stated ‘Official Notice’ of ‘unencrypted broadcasts were well known,’ even Appeal 2010-004814 Application 10/157,700 4 if assumed to be accurate, is insufficient to compensate for the deficiencies of Gammie with respect to claim 17” (App. Br. 6). We agree with Appellants. The Examiner did not show that Gammie teaches providing direct and decrypted representations of data respectively over a first bus that is viewable and a second bus through a port that is not viewable, as required by independent claims 1 and 17 (see Ans. 4-5 and 19-20). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 17 and 39 as well as the claims dependent therefrom (i.e., claims 18-31 and 40-44).1 DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 17-31 and 39-44 as obvious. REVERSED llw 1 Although we have decided the issues that have been set before us, we note that the Examiner may wish to consider an additional issue as to whether the claims are obvious in light of the teachings of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/ 0141479 A1 in view of Gammie.