Ex Parte Harrison et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 201411455231 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KEITH ALEXANDER HARRISON, TIMOTHY PAUL SPILLER, WILLIAM JOHN MUNRO, and CHRISTOPHER TOFTS ____________________ Appeal 2012-006017 Application 11/455,231 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2012-006017 Application 11/455,231 2 Illustrative Claim The claimed subject matter relates to methods and devices for using one-time pad data (Spec., p. 1, l. 5). Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. A method of using one-time pad data performed by a processor-based system, the method comprising: encrypting data, with said processor-based system, by combining a first succession of bits of the data being encrypted with a second succession of bits from said one-time pad data; in which one set of bits of a size from said first succession of bits is combined with at least two sets of bits of at least said size from said second succession of bits to form an output, said size comprising at least one bit. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Gammel Berzanskis US 2005/0036618 A1 US 2007/0140495 A1 Feb. 17, 2005 June 21, 2007 Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–4, 6–10, 12, 17, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Berzanskis and Gammel. Ans. 5–8. Claims 5, 11, 13–16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Berzanskis, Gammel, and Official Notice. Ans. 9–10. Issue The dispositive issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Berzanskis and Gammel teaches or suggests “encrypting Appeal 2012-006017 Application 11/455,231 3 data . . . in which one set of bits of a size from said first succession of bits is combined with at least two sets of bits of at least said size from said second succession of bits,” as recited in independent claim 1 and as similarly recited in independent claims 7 and 17.1 ANALYSIS In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner cites Berzanskis for its disclosure of encrypting data by combining a first succession of bits of the data being encrypted with a second succession of bits from one-time pad data. Ans. 5. Specifically, the Examiner relies on a disclosure of Berzanskis that implements quantum key distribution by determining XOR values between a random set of key bits and a one-time pad to obtain encrypted key bits. Berzanskis ¶ 14. The Examiner acknowledges that Berzanskis fails to disclose that “one set of bits of a size from said first succession of bits is combined with at least two sets of bits of at least said size from said second succession of bits to form an output, said size comprising at least one bit.” Ans. 5. For this limitation, the Examiner cites an XOR operation disclosed by Gammel. Id. at 6 (citing Gammel, Figs. 2A and 2B). Gammel discloses a device that performs arithmetic operations on at least two encrypted operands, ak and bk, to produce an encrypted result without decryption of the operands. Gammel ¶ 64. The disclosed XOR operation is applied to the two operands, which the Examiner identifies collectively as the “second succession of bits” for an encryption parameter k, which the Examiner identifies as the “first succession of bits.” Id. ¶¶ 68, 73; 1 Appellants’ contentions raise additional issues. Because the identified issue is dispositive, we do not reach the merits of the additional issues. Appeal 2012-006017 Application 11/455,231 4 see Ans. 6. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious to try Gammel’s disclosed combination on the bit successions taught by Berzanskis. Ans. 6. In support of this finding, the Examiner asserts that “both references are within the same scope: involving encryption via an XOR operator.” Ans. 12. We disagree with the Examiner’s findings. Although Berzanskis teaches a form of encryption using an XOR operator, the XOR operation taught by Gammel is of a different character. As Appellants observe, the XOR operation taught by Gammel “allows for the processing of encrypted data without having to first decrypt and re-encrypt that data for processing purposes,” and does not operate as an encryption process. App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 5. The Examiner has not established with sufficient rational underpinnings that one of skill in the art would reasonably try to use Gammel’s (nonencrypting) XOR operation in the encryption method taught by Berzanskis. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)). Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or the rejections of claims 7 and 17, which recite similar limitations, nor do we sustain the rejections of the claims that depend therefrom. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is reversed. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation