Ex Parte de Perthuis

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 24, 2019

14805431 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/805,431 07/21/2015
65913 7590 01/28/2019
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hugues de Perthuis
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
81639041US03 8485
EXAMINER
TABOR, AMARE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2019 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUGUES DE PERTHUIS
Appeal2018-005121
Application 14/805,431
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR.,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-17, which constitute all the pending claims in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant does not identify the real party in interest; however, the real
party in interest appears to be NXP B.V. See App. Br. 13.
Appeal 2018-005121
Application 14/805,431
THE INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to "securely encrypting and
decrypting data" within the memory of a device in order to "prevent[]
successful decryption in the event of execution of modified or malicious
code that alters the data" stored in the memory (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of encrypting data stored within a non-
transitory computer readable memory of a device, the method
compnsmg:
providing a key;
encrypting the data stored in the non-transitory computer
readable memory using the key;
generating an authentication code based on all contents
of a defined source code area stored in the non-transitory
computer readable memory;
wrapping the key using the authentication code to
generate a wrapped key; and
storing the wrapped key in the non-transitory computer
readable memory, wherein validity of the wrapped key is linked
to authenticity of the data stored in the non-transitory computer
readable memory.
App. Br. 14 (Claims Appendix).
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is the following:
2
Appeal 2018-005121
Application 14/805,431
Cheng US 2005/0036617 Al Feb. 17,2005
Alghathbar US 2011/0296193 Al Dec. 1, 2011
Sussland US 8,213,620 Bl July 3, 2012
Campello de Souza US 8,312,269 B2 Nov. 13, 2012
Harwood US 8,498,417 B 1 July 30, 2013
Wang US 2013/0311781 Al Nov. 21, 2013
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1---6, 10-13, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Campello de Souza, in view of Harwood and/or
Sussland, and further in view of Alghathbar. Final Act. 2.
Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Campello de Souza, in view of Harwood and/or Sussland, and further in
view of Alghathbar and Wang. Final Act. 9.
Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Campello de Souza, in view of Harwood and/or Sussland,
and further in view of Alghathbar and Cheng. Final Act. 10.2
ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding Alghathbar
teaches or suggests the limitation of "generating an authentication code
based on all contents of a defined source code area stored in the non-
2 The heading of the rejection incorrectly omits the reference Alghathbar,
whereas the body of the rejection refers to Alghathbar. See Final Act. 11.
3
Appeal 2018-005121
Application 14/805,431
transitory computer readable memory," as recited in independent claim 1,
and similarly recited in independent claims 11 and 14.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and Final Office
Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. We note that if
Appellant failed to present arguments on a particular rejection, we will not
unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection. See Ex parte
Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential); Hyatt v. Dudas,
551 F.3d 1307, 1313-14 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (the Board may treat arguments
Appellant failed to make for a given ground of rejection as waived).
Appellant argues "Alghathbar fails to generate an authentication code
based on all contents of a defined source code area stored in the non-
transitory computer readable memory" because "Alghathbar discloses that a
'hash function is built based upon respective portions of the secret key and a
language interpreter"' (Reply Br. 2, citing Alghathbar ,r 2, emphasis in
original). Appellant further contends that "because Alghathbar's 128-bit
hash code of X involves use of secret key K to permute the order of message
X," it follows that "Alghathbar's technique necessarily requires the use of
input secret key K" and is thus different from "generating an authentication
code based on all contents of a defined source code area" (Reply Br. 3,
citing Fig. 3 item 310 and ,r 39, emphasis in original).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. With respect to the
claimed "based on all contents of a defined source code area," the Examiner
finds that "Alghathbar meets the claimed limitation because it teaches using
'all contents' ( of message X) as a source code to generate/ compute an
4
Appeal 2018-005121
Application 14/805,431
authentication code" (Ans. 14, citing Alghathbar Figs. 2 item 214, Figs. 3
and 5, ,r,r 18, 28). Here, the cited portion of Alghathbar explicitly states
"[t]he input message will be used as a source code ... to generate a 128-bit
hash code of X" (Alghathbar ,r 28).
Further, with respect to Appellant's argument that "Alghathbar's
technique necessarily requires the use of input secret key K" (Reply Br. 3) to
generate the authentication code whereas Appellant's claimed method does
not require a secret key, Appellant's claim explicitly recites "based on"-not
"based solely on" or "based only on" or another variant-and additionally
recites the preamble transition "comprising," which allows for additional
elements. Thus, the claimed method encompasses Alghathbar' s use of a
secret key.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of independent claim
1, and independent claims 11 and 14 not separately argued with particularity,
as well as dependent claims 2-10, 12, 13, and 15-17 not separately argued
with particularity. See App. Br. 7-12.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding Alghathbar teaches or suggests
the limitation of "generating an authentication code based on all contents of
a defined source code area stored in the non-transitory computer readable
memory," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in
independent claims 11 and 14.
5
Appeal 2018-005121
Application 14/805,431
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6