Ex Parte de Jong

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 24, 2012

10672184 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte EDUARD K. DE JONG
____________________

Appeal 2009-010895
Application 10/672,184
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-010895
Application 10/672,184

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-19. Claims 5, 10, 15, and 20 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to rendering and
encryption engine for application program obfuscation (Spec. 3, ¶ [0006]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for application program obfuscation, comprising:

receiving, on an application program provider, a
reference to a decryption algorithm and a first
cryptographic key;

creating, on said application program provider, a
key decryption program comprising an instruction stream,
said key decryption program configured to perform said
decryption algorithm for said first cryptographic key;

applying, on said application program provider, a
cryptographic process to a second cryptographic key to
create an encrypted second cryptographic key wherein
said cryptographic process receives said first and
second cryptographic keys as inputs;

scrambling, on said application program provider,
said encrypted second cryptographic key into said
instruction stream using a code obfuscation method
Appeal 2009-010895
Application 10/672,184

3
indicated by an obfuscation descriptor, said scrambling
creating an obfuscated key decryption program, said
obfuscation descriptor based at least in part on a
target ID wherein said target ID specifies a user device
for executing an obfuscated application program; and

sending, from said application program provider,
said obfuscated key decryption program.

C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
LeVine US 2002/0120854 A1 Aug. 29, 2002
Okada US 6,789,177 B2 Sep. 07, 2004
(filed Mar. 13, 2002)
Kessler US 7,170,999 B1 Jan. 30, 2007
(filed Aug. 28, 2002)
Orr WO 02, 079955 A2 Oct. 10, 2002

Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kessler, Okada, Orr, and LeVine.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue before us is whether the Examiner has erred in
determining that the combination of Kessler, Okada, Orr, and LeVine
teaches or would have suggested receiving “on an application program
provider, … a first cryptographic key,” “creating, on said application
program provider, a key decryption program … for said first cryptographic
key” and applying “on said application program provider, a cryptographic
process to a second cryptographic key to create an encrypted second
cryptographic key” wherein the cryptographic process receives “said first
Appeal 2009-010895
Application 10/672,184

4
and second cryptographic keys as inputs” (claim 1 (emphasis added)). In
particular, the issue turns on whether Kessler in view of Orr would have
suggested receiving a first cryptographic key and applying a cryptographic
process to create an encrypted second cryptographic key on the same
application program provider, wherein a key decryption program for the first
cryptographic key is created on the application program provider.

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Kessler
1. Kessler discloses establishing peer-to-peer connection wherein the
sending computer encrypts a file using a track key, encrypts the track key
using a public key associated with the receiving computer received from an
application server, and sends the encrypted track key and the encrypted file
to the receiving computer (Abstract).
2. Each client computer receives proprietary client software that includes
a public key, a secret key, necessary encryption and decryption algorithms,
and obfuscation and de-obfuscation algorithms (col. 8, ll. 50-56).
3. Kessler’s Figure 6 is reproduced below:
App
App

Kess
the a
and m
4.
appr
to U
(col.
5.
the f
27-3
6.
TK i
TK,
eal 2009-0
lication 10
ler’s Figur
pplication
akes a tr
The app
oval to the
ser 2, and
9, ll. 20-2
User 1 o
ile transfer
4).
User 2 w
s encrypte
the User 2
10895
/672,184
e 6 disclo
server 200
ansfer requ
lication ser
applicatio
User 2 the
7).
bfuscates
, and TK i
ill need tr
d by User
public key
ses peer-to
and finds
est to the
ver 200 n
n server 2
n initiates
musicfile.m
s to be use
ack key, T
1 before b
PK2 is se
5
-peer file
a file, mu
application
otifies Use
00 which t
a peer-to-p
p3 and g
d by User
K, to decr
eing sent t
nt by the
sharing in
sicfile.mp
server 20
r 1, User 1
ransfers th
eer conne
enerates a
1 to encry
ypt the enc
o User 2;
application
which Use
3, located
0 (col. 9,
transmits
e transfer
ction with
track key,
pt the file
rypted fil
wherein to
server 20
r 2 access
on User 1
ll. 16-20).
a transfer
approval
User 1
TK, for
(col. 9, ll.
e, wherein
encrypt
0 to User

,

Appeal 2009-010895
Application 10/672,184

6
1 who encrypts TK using PK2; and User 1 then encrypts the file using TK.
(col. 9, ll. 35-45).
Orr
7. Orr discloses providing security through a general mechanism, which
is then varied in order to provide variable, dissimilar security schemes for
different types of content (Abstract).

IV. ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that “in Claim 1, both the first and second
cryptographic keys are on the application program provider, while the
rejection relies on elements on two different entities [of Kessler]” (App. Br.
15). In particular, Appellant argues that, “[a]ccording to the rejection, ‘User
1’ [of Kessler] is equivalent to the application program provider,” but
“[s]ince key SK2 is not available to ‘User 1,’ the rejection requires a
modification to Kessler to make key SK2 available to ‘User 1’” which
“requires a change in the principles of operation of Kessler” (App. Br. 15-
16). Appellant then contends that “Kessler taught that each client computer
received (not created) the same proprietary client software,” and thus “[n]o
teaching or suggestion has been cited that any decryption program was
created on the client computer, and in fact, Kessler taught that it was created
elsewhere and supplied to the client computer as part of a registration
process with a server” (App. Br. 18).
In response, the Examiner explains that “the rejection never stated or
implied that the client computer of User 1 was equivalent to the claimed
application program” (Ans. 12) and that “the existence of the proprietary
software implied the existence of some application provider or application
Appeal 2009-010895
Application 10/672,184

7
builder used to create the proprietary software” (Ans. 13). Though the
Examiner agrees with Appellant that “the examiner relied on SK2 as the
claimed first cryptographic key” (Ans. 18), the Examiner finds that, though
“Kessler does not explicitly state that the receiving, creating, applying,
scrambling, and sending steps were done on a single application program
provider/program builder,” Orr shows that “it would have been obvious to
do all these stated steps to create a program on a single application
builder/application program provider” (Ans. 13).
However, upon review of the record, we agree with Appellant. In
particular, we do not find any teaching or even suggestion in the sections of
the cited references relied upon by the Examiner of receiving a first
cryptographic key and applying a cryptographic process to create an
encrypted second cryptographic key on an application program provider,
wherein a key decryption program for the first cryptographic key is created
on the application program provider.
Kessler discloses establishing peer-to-peer connection wherein the
sending computer encrypts a file using a track key, encrypts the track key
using the public key associated with the receiving computer received from
the application server, and sends the encrypted track key and the encrypted
file to the receiving computer (FF 1-6). In particular, the sending user at the
sending computer obfuscates a file and generates a track key to encrypt the
file (FF 5), and the receiving user at the receiving computer will use the
track key to decrypt the encrypted file, wherein the track key is encrypted by
the sending user using a public key specific to the receiving user before
being sent to the receiving user (FF 6). However, in Kessler, the proprietary
Appeal 2009-010895
Application 10/672,184

8
client software at the client computers already includes decryption
algorithms (FF 3).
We agree with the Examiner that the claimed “application program”
cannot be limited to just User 1 of Kessler (Ans. 12). Kessler discloses
receiving SK2 and applying a cryptographic process to create an encrypted
TK. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that Kessler at the
least would have suggested receiving, on an application program provider, a
first cryptographic key and applying, on the application program provider, a
cryptographic process to create an encrypted second cryptographic key.
However, we do not find any teachings in Kessler of creating on an
application program provider a key decryption program for the first
cryptographic key, as required by claim 1, contrary to the Examiner’s
finding. Instead, in Kessler, there is no need to create since the decryption
program already exists (FF 7). That is, we agree with Appellant that Kessler
teaches “received (not created) … proprietary client software” and thus
“[n]o teaching or suggestion has been cited that any decryption program was
created …, and in fact, Kessler taught that it was created elsewhere and
supplied to … as part of a registration process with a server” (App. Br. 18).
Though the Examiner finds that “it would have been obvious to do all
these stated steps to create a program on a single application
builder/application program provider” (Ans. 13), the sections of Orr cited by
the Examiner merely disclose providing security through a general
mechanism, (FF 7). There is no suggestion in Orr of modifying the
teachings of Kessler to create the decryption program on the same
application program provider that receives a first cryptographic key and
creates an encrypted second cryptographic key.
Appeal 2009-010895
Application 10/672,184

9
Since the Examiner has not made a clear distinction as to what
teachings of Kessler and Orr comprise or would have suggested creating the
decryption program on the same application program provider that receives
a first cryptographic key and creates an encrypted second cryptographic key,
the Examiner has failed to meet the initial burden of proof required for the
rejection pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a).
Accordingly, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of representative claim 1 over Kessler in view of Okada, Orr and LeVine.
Independent claims 6, 11, and 16 recite similar features to those of claim 1,
and thus claims 6, 11, and 16 and claims 2-4, 7-9, 12-14, and 17-19,
depending respectively from claims 1, 6, 11, and 16, fall with claim 1 over
Kessler in view of Okada, Orr and LeVine.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-14, and 16-19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED

peb