UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
|
|
|
- Vanessa Dalton
- 9 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/968,258 01/02/2008 George Meldrum Blue GB US /09/2014 IBM CORP. (WSM) c/o WINSTEAD P.C. P.O. BOX DALLAS, TX ART UNIT 2431 EXAMINER CHAI, LONGBIT PAPER NUMBER MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/09/2014 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)
2 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte GEORGE MELDRUM BLUE, JOHN JAMES RALPH SCOTT, JAMIE PETER SQUIBB, and PHILIP GRAHAM WILLOUGHBY Appeal Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. 134(a) from a rejection of claims 2 15 and Claims 1, 16, and 17 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, International Business Machines Corporation is the real party in interest. (App. Br. 1.)
3 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants invention relates to the field of protection of sensitive data in programs. In particular, it relates to restricting access to sensitive data in programs. (Spec. 1.) Claim 2 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 2. A method for protecting data in program code, comprising: a programming interface providing a capability of allocating a protected region of memory which can only be accessed by authorized code; storing sensitive data present in program code in the protected region of memory; and marking parts of code in a program as authorized or not authorized to access the sensitive data, and determining if that part of a program which is executing is authorized to access protected data by reference to the marking. REJECTIONS Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 13, 18, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being anticipated by McKee (US 6,745,307 B2; June 1, 2004). Claims 4, 5, 8, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McKee and Chow (US 6,779,114 B1; Aug. 17, 2004). Claims 14, 15, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over McKee and Yamaguchi (US 2008/ A1; March 6, 2008). 2
4 ISSUE The following issue is dispositive of this appeal: Does McKee disclose marking parts of code in a program as authorized or not authorized to access the sensitive data, and determining if that part of a program which is executing is authorized to access protected data by reference to the marking as recited in claim 2? ANALYSIS The Examiner found McKee disclosed assigning a privilege level to a currently executing process and using the privilege level to determine whether the process is authorized to access sensitive data. (See Ans. 4 5, 12.) The Examiner also found setting a privilege level of an execut[ing] routine... constitutes marking parts of code in a program. (Id. at 12.) Appellants argue the cited portions of McKee do not disclose the marking step recited in claim 2. (See App. Br. 4 7.) Appellants contend that [w]hile the privilege level may be used... to determine if the executing process may access a memory page, it is not marked in parts of the code in a program. (Reply Br. 3 4.) We agree with Appellants. Claim 2 recites both code and a program which is executing, which indicates the recited code and executing program are not the same. Yet the Examiner equated McKee s executing process with the claimed code. (See Ans. 4 5, 12.) The Examiner has not provided sufficient evidence or reasoning to support the finding that setting a privilege level of a currently executing process discloses marking parts of code in a program as recited in claim 2. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 2. Because claims 3 15 and either recite a similar 3
5 limitation or depend from a claim that does, we also do not sustain the rejection of these claims DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the rejection of claims 2 15 and REVERSED kme 4
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 09/982,337 10/18/2001 Todd Ouzts MFCP.
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/304,776 11/26/2002 Jouni Ylitalo 800.0882.
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/001,772 10/31/2001 Anand Subramanian 03485/100H799-US1 4306
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 10/748,316 12/30/2003 Jeffrey Robert Roose 1671-0286 8025
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
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
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
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
UNITED STA TES p A TENT 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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 11/588,111 10/26/2006 Frank N. Mandigo 6113B-002728/US/COA 1211
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
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte JOHANNES HENRICUS VAN BIJNEN and PETER HUMPHREY DE LA RAMBELJE Appeal 2009-002284 1 Technology Center
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES. Ex parte JORDI ALBORNOZ
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte JORDI ALBORNOZ Appeal 2009-012862 Technology Center 3600 Before, JAMES D. THOMAS, ANTON W. FETTING
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte RICHARD J TITMUSS, CAROLINE AM LEBRE, and JAMES L TAYLOR Appeal 2009-000930 Technology Center 2400
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte B. REILLY BARRY, MARK A. CHODORONEK, ERIC DEROSE, CAROL Y. DEVINE, MARK N. STUDNESS, ANGELA R. JAMES,
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte SHERI L. MCGUIRE, THOMAS E. TAYLOR, and BRIAN EMANUEL Appeal 2009-002177 Technology Center 1700 Decided:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ORACLE AMERICA, INC., Appellant v. GOOGLE, INC., Appellee 2014-1351 Appeal from the United States Patent
[email protected] Paper 7 571-272-7822 Date: May 14, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
[email protected] Paper 7 571-272-7822 Date: May 14, 2013 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ORACLE CORPORATION Petitioner v. CLOUDING IP, LLC Patent Owner
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES Ex parte HUBERTUS BUTTNER, MARCUS VAN HEYDEN, MARKUS DEUTEL, and ALFONS VOLLMUTH Appeal 2009-002387 1 Technology
[email protected] Paper 20 571-272-7822 Entered: April 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
[email protected] Paper 20 571-272-7822 Entered: April 22, 2014 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD EXPERIAN MARKETING SOLUTIONS, INC. and EPSILON DATA MANAGEMENT,
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. In re Charmay, Inc. d.b.a. ServiceMaster of Alexandria
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB FEB. 24, 00 Paper No. 9 RLS/Fleming U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re Charmay, Inc.
DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Department of Health and Human Services DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD Appellate Division In the Case of: The Physicians Hospital in Anadarko, Petitioner, - v. - Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. DATE:
COMMENTARY. Amending Patent Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceedings
SEPTEMBER 2015 COMMENTARY Amending Patent Claims in Inter Partes Review Proceedings The inter partes review ( IPR ) statute authorizes a patent owner ( PO ) to file, after an IPR has been instituted, one
[email protected] Paper 12 571.272.7822 Entered: June 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
[email protected] Paper 12 571.272.7822 Entered: June 3, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD APPLE, INC., Petitioner, v. CONTENTGUARD HOLDINGS, INC.,
[email protected] Paper 28 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD. WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner,
[email protected] Paper 28 Tel: 571-272-7822 Entered: May 14, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD WESTLAKE SERVICES, LLC, Petitioner, v. CREDIT ACCEPTANCE
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT. No. 10-3272. In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor. ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT No. 10-3272 In re: JOHN W. HOWARD, Debtor NOT PRECEDENTIAL ROBERT O. LAMPL, Appellant VANASKIE, Circuit Judge. On Appeal from the United States District
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit PLANET BINGO, LLC, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. VKGS LLC (doing business as Video King), Defendant-Appellee.
[email protected] Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: March 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
[email protected] Paper 38 571-272-7822 Entered: March 23, 2015 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD CHICAGO MERCANTILE EXCHANGE, INC., Petitioner, v. 5th MARKET,
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA. City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 85 C.D. 2006 : Argued: November 14, 2006 James Carpino, : Appellant :
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA City of Philadelphia : : v. : No. 85 C.D. 2006 : Argued: November 14, 2006 James Carpino, : Appellant : BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE MARY
Case 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION
Case 2:07-cv-10945-SFC-MKM Document 132 Filed 05/27/2008 Page 1 of 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION DURA GLOBAL, TECHNOLOGIES, INC., et al., Plaintiffs, CIVIL
Stanley Weiss v. e-scrub Systems Inc
2015 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 4-15-2015 Stanley Weiss v. e-scrub Systems Inc Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/thirdcircuit_2015
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS. Appeal of -- ) ) A. Montano Electrical Contractor ) ASBCA No. 56951 ) Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 )
ARMED SERVICES BOARD OF CONTRACT APPEALS Appeal of -- ) ) A. Montano Electrical Contractor ) ASBCA No. 56951 ) Under Contract No. 000000-00-0-0000 ) APPEARANCE FOR THE APPELLANT: APPEARANCES FOR THE GOVERNMENT:
United Video v. Amazon.com: Clear Disavowal of Claim Scope
United Video v. Amazon.com: Clear Disavowal of Claim Scope Today in United Video Properties, Inc. v. Amazon.com, Fed. App x (Fed. Cir. 2014)(Lourie, J.), the Court affirmed a noninfringement ruling where
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202 In the Matter of WILLOUGHBY-EASTLAKE SCHOOL OF PRACTICAL NURSING, Respondent. Docket No. 09-02-SP Federal Student Aid Proceeding PRCN: 200720525774
the FEE SIMPLE THE DRAFTING OF PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS: DEMAYO V. DEMAYO A CAUTIONARY TALE by Raighne C. Delaney and James W.
I. INTRODUCTION THE DRAFTING OF PROPERTY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS: DEMAYO V. DEMAYO A CAUTIONARY TALE by Raighne C. Delaney and James W. Korman * When a husband and wife enter into a property settlement agreement,
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION. Petitioner, Respondent. ROGER W. LEGRAND, COMMISSIONER:
STATE OF WISCONSIN TAX APPEALS COMMISSION JACK ROSGA, DOCKET NO. 07-I-099 Petitioner, vs. DECISION AND ORDER WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, Respondent. ROGER W. LEGRAND, COMMISSIONER: This matter comes
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB
THIS DISPOSITION IS NOT CITABLE AS PRECEDENT OF THE TTAB Mailed: November 23, 2005 UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE Trademark Trial and Appeal Board In re GMAC Mortgage Corporation Serial No.
The USPTO: Patent Application and Examination Processes
The USPTO: Patent Application and Examination Processes Ram Shukla Supervisory Patent Examiner 571-272-0735 [email protected] Jeanne Clark Patent Examination Policy Advisor, MPEP 571-272-7714 [email protected]