Ex Parte Ekberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 20, 201613423661 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/423,661 03/19/2012 11764 7590 Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C, 44 Canal Center Plaza Suite 322 Alexandria, VA 22314 07/22/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jan-Erik Ekberg 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. P5983USOO 8212 EXAMINER PATEL,NIRAVB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2496 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2016 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): docket@dcpatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAN-ERIK EKBERG and MIKKO SAKARI HAIKONEN1 Appeal2015-003383 Application 13/423,661 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-20. Claims 21--48 have been canceled. App. Br. 18. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Nokia Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2015-003383 Application 13/423,661 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' invention is directed to "providing information authentication from external sensors to secure environments." Spec. Title. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics: 1. A method comprising facilitating a processing of and/ or processing (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal, the (1) data and/or (2) information and/or (3) at least one signal based, at least in part, on the following: a generation of at least one cryptographic key for use by one or more sensors that are associated with at least one device and that are external to at least one secure environment; a transmission of the at least one cryptographic key to the one or more sensors; and an authentication of sensor information transmitted by the one or more sensors to the at least one secure environment based, at least in part, on the cryptographic key. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Emigh et al. US 7,818,317 Bl Oct. 19, 2010 ("Emigh") Miluzzo et al. US 2010/0299615 Al Nov. 25, 2010 ("Miluzzo") Zhang et al. US 7,849,318 B2 Dec. 7, 2010 ("Zhang") Izumi et al. US 8,004,404 B2 Aug. 23, 2011 ("Izumi") (PCT filed Aug. 3, 2006) Saxena et al. US 2012/0159172 Al June 21, 2012 ("Saxena") (filed Dec. 21, 2010) 2 Appeal2015-003383 Application 13/423,661 Poo et al. ("Poo") Dingler et al. ("Dingler") Shon et al. ("Shon") US 8,423,789 Bl US 8,472,979 B2 US 8,516,252 B2 Apr. 16, 2013 (filed May 22, 2008) June 25, 2013 (filed July 15, 2008) Aug. 20, 2013 (filed June 25, 2010) The Examiner's Rejections Claims 1and11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Izumi. Final Act. 2-3. Claims 2 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Izumi and Poo. Final Act. 3--4. Claims 3 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Izumi, Poo, and Saxena. Final Act. 4. Claims 4, 5, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Izumi and Zhang. Final Act. 5. Claims 6 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Izumi, Zhang, and Shon. Final Act. 5-6. Claims 7 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Izumi, Zhang, Shon, and Dingler. Final Act. 6. Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Izumi and Miluzzo. Final Act. 7. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Izumi and Emigh. Final Act. 7-8. 3 Appeal2015-003383 Application 13/423,661 ISSUE ON APPEAL Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 4--11), the issue presented on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in finding Izumi discloses the disputed limitations as recited in claim 1. ANALYSIS2 We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 4--11. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own: (A) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this Appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-9), and (B) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 8- 12). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Izumi discloses the disputed limitations recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 4--7. In particular, Appellants assert Izumi's moving object information verification device stores a signature key in a moving information storage device. App. Br. 5---6 (citing Izumi, col. 22, 11. 11-15, 22-27, 45--48; Fig. 18). Appellants argue Izumi distinguishes the moving object information storage device from the sensor group, and "Izumi 's moving object information storage device 3 is not a sensor." Id.; see also Reply Br. 5. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. When construing claim terminology during prosecution before the Office, claims are to be given 2 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed August 21, 2014); Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed December 24, 2014); the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed February 21, 2014); and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed on November 19, 2014). 4 Appeal2015-003383 Application 13/423,661 their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, reading claim language in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Furthermore, a reference can anticipate a claimed invention even though it describes the claimed subject matter using different terms. Izumi' s teaching need not be in ipsissimis verb is. See In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978). In this case, Appellants' Specification does not expressly define a "sensor." Thus, under a broad but reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, the disputed "one or more sensors" may be understood to include the combination of Izumi' s sensor group and storage device. As the Examiner explains, Izumi' s storage device including sensor group functions "to obtain the information related to various moving condition and status." Ans. 9. Thus, the functionality provided by Izumi' s sensor group taken together with Izumi' s storage device is equivalent to and discloses the disputed "one or more sensors" despite Izumi' s differing nomenclature describing sensor group standing alone as a "group of sensors." See id. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Izumi discloses generation of at least one signature key (the claimed "at least one cryptographic key") for use by the combination of sensor group and storage device (the claimed "one or more sensors") that are associated with at least one device and that are external to at least one secure environment as required by claim 1. We further agree with the Examiner that Izumi discloses a transmission of the signature key (the claimed "at least one cryptographic key") to the combination of sensor group and storage device (the claimed "one or more sensors"), as further required by claim 1. See Final Act. 2-3, 8-9; Ans. 9. 5 Appeal2015-003383 Application 13/423,661 For the above reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by finding Izumi discloses the disputed limitations of independent claims 1 and 11, and sustain the rejection of these independent claims. Appellants do not argue separately dependent claims 2-10 and 12-20 and, thus, for the same reasons as in claims 1 and 11, we sustain the rejections of those dependent claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation