Cisco Technology, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 24, 2020

14643802 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 24, 2020)

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.
14/643,802 03/10/2015 Tirumaleswar Reddy 0370.3112C/995420-US.01 4866
127263 7590 03/24/2020
Edell, Shapiro & Finnan LLC
9801 Washingtonian Boulevard
Suite 750
Gaithersburg, MD 20878
EXAMINER
RAHIM, MONJUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2020 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):
epatent@usiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TIRUMALESWAR REDDY, DANIEL G. WING,
PRASHANTH PATIL, and RAM MOHAN R.
____________

Appeal 2019-001313
Application 14/643,802
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JULIET MITCHELL DIRBA, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Cisco
Technology, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001313
Application 14/643,802

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to a media stream recorded
using one or more keys. The one or more keys are also encrypted. The one
or more encrypted keys may be stored with the encrypted media session at a
cloud storage service. A network device receives a request to record a
media stream and accesses at least one stream key for the media stream. The
stream key is for encrypting the media stream. The network device encrypts
the stream key with a master key. The encrypted stream key is stored in
association with the encrypted media stream. See Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the
appeal, and reads as follows (with disputed limitation emphasized):
1. A method comprising:
establishing a media call stream, wherein the media call
stream is a voice over internet protocol call or video conference
call and includes at least one parameter;
receiving a request to record the media call stream;
receiving, in response to receiving the request to record
the media call stream, at least one stream key associated with
the media call stream and the at least one parameter for the
voice over internet protocol call or video conference call,
wherein the media call stream is encrypted with the at least one
stream key;
accessing, in response to receiving the request to record
the media call stream, a master key;
encrypting, in response to receiving the request to record
the media call stream, with the processor, the at last one stream
key with the master key;
generating metadata for the media call stream;
encrypting, with a processor, the metadata with the
master key; and
Appeal 2019-001313
Application 14/643,802

3
storing, in response to receiving the request to record the
media call stream, the encrypted at least one stream key in
association with the encrypted media call stream.

References
The references relied upon by the Examiner are:
Name Reference Date
Muntz US 2003/0208681 A1 Nov. 6, 2003
Perlman US 2009/0296926 A1 Dec. 3, 2009
Bischoff US 2014/0280720 A1 Sept. 18, 2014

The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1–4, 6–13, 15, 16, and 18–20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Bischoff and Perlman.
The Examiner rejected claims 5, 14, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over Bischoff, Perlman, and Muntz.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the rejection of the pending claims in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. In doing so, we have
evaluated only the arguments that Appellant actually makes on appeal.
Independent Claim 1
Appellant contests the Examiner’s findings regarding the following
limitations, as recited in independent claim 1 “encrypting, with a processor,
the metadata with the master key.” Claim 1. See Appeal Br. 9–10; Reply
Br. 1–3.
The Examiner finds the aforementioned limitations are principally
taught by Perlman, at paragraphs 6 and 34. Final Act. 3; Ans. 5. Turning to
Appeal 2019-001313
Application 14/643,802

4
the evidence relied upon by the Examiner, Perlman describes in pertinent
part “the system stores metadata along with the encrypted data, wherein the
metadata includes the key K encrypted with a master key S (represented as
‘{K}S’) and a master key ID,” (Perlman, ¶ 6); and “storage server 120 can
retrieve master-key ID 154 and key ID 152 from metadata associated with
encrypted data item 151” (Perlman, ¶ 34).
In response, Appellant contends:
Perlman discloses a system that “stores metadata along with the
encrypted data, wherein the metadata includes the key K
encrypted with a master key S (represented as ‘{K}S’) and a
master key ID.” Perlman at ¶ [0006]. Thus, Perlman teaches
that its metadata includes unencrypted data(i.e., the master key
ID) and encrypted data (i.e., encrypted key K). However,
Perlman does not teach or even suggest that once the metadata
is generated, the metadata is subject to encryption. That is,
Perlman merely teaches that the metadata can include
encrypted data, but fails to teach or even suggest that the
metadata itself is encrypted, let alone “encrypting ... the
metadata with the master key,” as recited in Appellant’s
claim 1 ( emphasis added).
Appeal Br. 10.
Perlman discloses “a system that generates and retrieves a key
derived from a master key.” Perlman at Abstract. Specifically,
Perlman teaches:
First, the system obtains a key identifier and a master-key
identifier from metadata associated with an encrypted
data item (step 202) . . . . Next, storage server 120
includes the master-key ID 154 and the key ID 152 in a
request for a key (step 204), and sends the request to
KMS 102 (step 206). KMS 102 then generates and
returns a key . . . . Finally, storage server 120 receives the
key from KMS 102 (step 208) and then uses the key for
... decrypting a data item (step 210).
Appeal 2019-001313
Application 14/643,802

5
Id. at ¶ [0034]. Thus, Perlman teaches that metadata associated
with an encrypted data item includes an unencrypted key
identifier and a master-key identifier. The unencrypted key
identifier and the master-key identifier can be included in a
request for a key that can be used to decrypt the encrypted data
item. Perlman does not teach or suggest that the key identifier
and the master-key identifier, while being included in the
metadata or the request, are encrypted/ciphered. Even assuming
that the key identifier and master-key identifier are encrypted
while they are included in the metadata, which Appellant does
not concede, Perlman does not teach or even suggest that the
metadata itself is encrypted. Appellant respectfully points out
that metadata can remain unencrypted while containing
encrypted data items.
Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added).
In other words, Appellant contends in Perlman metadata can remain
unencrypted while containing encrypted data items.
We give the contested claim limitations the broadest reasonable
interpretation (“BRI”) consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
As emphasized by our reviewing court in Smith:
Even when giving claim terms their broadest reasonable
interpretation, the Board cannot construe the claims “so broadly
that its constructions are unreasonable under general claim
construction principles.” Microsoft Corp. v. Proxyconn, Inc.,
789 F.3d 1292, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2015). “[T]he protocol of
giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation . . . does
not include giving claims a legally incorrect interpretation”
“divorced from the specification and the record evidence.” Id.
(citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see PPC
Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc'ns RF, LLC, 815
F.3d 747, 751–53 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
. . .
Appeal 2019-001313
Application 14/643,802

6
The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest
reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is not
whether the specification proscribes or precludes some broad
reading of the claim term adopted by the examiner. And it is
not simply an interpretation that is not inconsistent with the
specification. It is an interpretation that corresponds with what
and how the inventor describes his invention in the
specification, i.e., an interpretation that is “consistent with the
specification.” In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also
In re Suitco Surface, 603 F.3d 1255, 1259–60 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Applying our reviewing court’s guidance here, we broadly but
reasonably interpret the disputed claim language in a manner consistent with
Appellant’s Specification. (Id.). We find the contested claim limitation
“encrypting . . . the metadata with the master key” finds clear support in at
least paragraph 50 of the Specification: “The controller 303 may encrypt the
metadata using the master key.”
Given the aforementioned context and support in the Specification
(¶ 50), we conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of “encrypting,
. . . the metadata with the master key” (claim 1), that is “consistent with the
specification” Morris, 127 F.3d at 1054, means that the metadata itself is
encrypted and that placing previously encrypted data into the metadata does
not meet this claim limitation.
We agree with Appellant that Perlman’s teaching of metadata that
includes an unencrypted key identifier and a master-key identifier does not
suggest encrypting the metadata itself with the master key. Further, we
agree with Appellant that Perlman’s teaching that its metadata can include
encrypted data (an encrypted key) does not teach or suggest encrypting
Appeal 2019-001313
Application 14/643,802

7
metadata after it is generated, as required. Therefore, we conclude the
Examiner’s broader construction is overly broad, unreasonable, and
inconsistent with the Specification.
Accordingly, on this record, we are compelled to conclude that
Appellant has persuaded us of error regarding the obviousness rejection.
Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to claim
1, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments regarding Examiner
error.
Independent claims 11, 15, and 19 include limitations commensurate
to the disputed limitation of independent claim 1. Accordingly, based on the
record before us, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent
claims 1, 11, 15, and 19 based on Bischoff and Perlman. For the reasons
discussed regarding independent claims 1, 11, 15, and 19 we do not sustain
the obviousness rejections of their respective dependent claims.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–13,
15, 16, 18–
20
103 Bischoff, Perlman 1–4, 6–13,
15, 16, 18–
20
5, 14, 17 103 Bischoff, Perlman,
Muntz
5, 14, 17
Overall
Outcome

1–20

REVERSED