Ex Parte Jaffe

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13835402 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017)

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.
13/835,402 03/15/2013 Joshua M. Jaffe 10314.0086-00000 2850
15695 7590
Rambus/Finnegan
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
09/28/2017 EXAMINER
VICTORIA, NARCISO F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2498
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
regional-desk @ finnegan. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRYPTOGRAPHY RESEARCH, INC.1
Appeal 2017-005069
Application 13/835,402
Technology Center 2400
Before THOMAS L. GIANNETTI, JASON V. MORGAN, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 10-13, 16, and 18—31. Claims 3, 7, 9, 14,
15, and 17 are canceled. App. Br. 25, 28, and 29. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellant discloses the masking of squaring operations so as “to make
squaring operations indistinguishable or less distinguishable from
1 Joshua M. Jaffe is the named inventor.
Appeal 2017-005069
Application 13/835,402
multiplication operations” and other methods to defeat side-channel attacks
such as simple power analysis. See Abstract; see also Spec. 12.2
Representative Claim
1. A computer-implemented method for resisting Simple
Power Analysis (SPA) attacks by masking an operation in
modular exponentiation, the method being performed by a
system comprising at least one processor and at least one
memory, the method comprising:
receiving one or more inputs at the processor, wherein the
inputs comprise one or more operands;
defining a mask value and a fix value, wherein the mask
value and the fix value are stored in a first location of the at
least one memory;
defining a left-hand-side (LHS) parameter and a right-hand
side (RHS) parameter to be each equal to the one or more
inputs;
calculating a plurality of temporary values using the LHS
and RHS parameters and the mask value;
generating an output based on one of the plurality of
temporary values and the fix value; and
using the output in a modular exponentiation operation,
wherein the operation is a squaring operation or a
multiplication operation, and if the operation is a
multiplication operation, the fix value is a function of the
mask value and one of the inputs, and the fix value is stored
in a second location of the at least one memory.
2 Herein, citations to the text of the Specification refer to the Substitute
Specification — Clean Version, filed June 20, 2013. Citations to figures in
the Specification refer to the drawings filed March 15, 2013.
2
Appeal 2017-005069
Application 13/835,402
Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 10-13, 16, and 18—31 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Final Act.
4-6.
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant’s arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Patent eligibility is a question of law that is reviewable de novo.
Dealertrack, Inc. v. Huber, 674 F.3d 1315, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012). To be
statutorily patentable, the subject matter of an invention must be a “new and
useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or [a] new
and useful improvement thereof.” 35 U.S.C. § 101. There are implicit
exceptions to the categories of patentable subject matter identified in § 101,
including: (1) laws of nature, (2) natural phenomena, and (3) abstract ideas.
Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Inti, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). The
Supreme Court has set forth a framework for distinguishing patents with
claims directed to these implicit exceptions “from those that claim patent-
eligible applications of those concepts.” Id. at 2347 (citing Mayo
Collaborative Servs. v. Prometheus Labs, Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)). The
evaluation follows a two-part analysis: (1) determine whether the claim is
directed to a patent-ineligible concept, e.g., an abstract idea; and (2) if a
patent-ineligible concept is present in the claim, determine whether any
element, or combination of elements, in the claim is sufficient to ensure that
3
Appeal 2017-005069
Application 13/835,402
the claim amounts to significantly more than the patent-ineligible concept
itself. See Alice, 134 S. Ct. at 2355.
In rejecting claim 1 under 35U.S.C. § 101, the Examiner determines
that the claimed invention is “directed to a mathematical algorithm for
masking an operation in modular exponentiation.” Final Act. 5; see also
Ans. 6, 11—12. The Examiner concludes that the remaining recitations are
directed to “generic computer functions which do not constitute meaningful
limitations that would amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.”
Final Act. 5—6; see also Ans. 7, 14.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred by providing “only a general
conclusion that the abstractness [of claim 1] is an ‘algorithm’” without
identifying “what the algorithm is.” App. Br. 15—16 (citing Final Act. | 5);
see also Reply Br. 2—3. However, the Examiner’s finding that claim 1 is
“directed to a mathematical algorithm for masking an operation in modular
exponentiation” (Final Act. 5) accords with the recitations of claim 1 as read
in light of the Specification. Ans. 6. Specifically, the Specification
discloses algorithms for applying asymmetrically masked multiplication to
an unmasked squaring operation (Spec.l 50, Fig. 2A) and for applying
asymmetrically masked multiplication to an unmasked multiplication
operation (Spec. 1 51, Fig. 2B).
The two algorithms for applying asymmetrically masked
multiplication both include receiving one or more inputs (i.e., input A for
squaring or inputs A and B for multiplication), defining a mask value (R)
and a fix value (R2 for squaring and -BxR for multiplication), defining a
left-hand-side parameter (A) and a right-hand-side parameter (A for
squaring and B+R for multiplication), calculating a plurality of temporary
4
Appeal 2017-005069
Application 13/835,402
values (Tl, T2, T3) using the LHS and RHSparameters and the mask value
(T1=LHS+R, T2=LHS-R, T3=TlxT2, where the T3 equals A2-R2 for
squaring and AxB+BxR for multiplication), and generating an output based
on one of the plurality of temporary values and the fix value (T3+R2 for
squaring, which is A2; T3~BxR for multiplication, which is AxB). See
Spec. 50-51, Figs. 2A—B; see also App. Br. 3^4.
The steps of claim 1, like the patent-ineligible binary-coded decimal
to pure binary conversion algorithm of Gottschalk v. Benson, present “a
generalized formulation for programs to solve mathematical problem.”
Gottschalk v. Benson, 409 U.S. 63, 65 (1972); see also id. at 73—74. Here,
the mathematical problem is finding the solution of one of two operations
(squaring or multiplication), where the operations are differentiated by small
changes in how a mask value, fix value, and right-hand side parameter are
defined. Thus, although not expressly claimed in algebraic terms, the
recitations of claim 1, read in light of the Specification, are directed to a
mathematical algorithm for masking an operation (i.e., either a squaring or a
multiplication operation) in modular exponentiation. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that claim 1 is directed to a patent-ineligible concept (i.e.,
an abstract mathematical algorithm).
Appellant contends that claim 1 is “directed to a specific process for
masking cryptographic operations to protect against external attacks . . .
‘necessarily rooted in computer technology.’” App. Br. 16 (citing DDR
Holdings, LLCv. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2014));
see also Reply Br. 3 (“[T]he claims are directed to a specific ‘improvement
of an existing technology’—protecting cryptographic operations from
external power analyses.”). However, we agree with the Examiner that the
5
Appeal 2017-005069
Application 13/835,402
preamble recitation directed to resisting Simple Power Analysis attacks
merely states “the purpose or field of use of the invention.” Final Act. 6; see
also Ans. 8.
Appellant does not identify recitations in the body of the claim
directed to protecting an operation from external attacks such as Simple
Power Analysis. Rather, claim 1 merely recites using the output in a
modular exponentiation operation, a mathematical step (calculating c=be
mod m) that, while useable in some forms of cryptography, is nonetheless
claimed as merely an abstract mathematical operation.
Appellant also does not show that the preamble recitation directed to
resisting Simple Power Analysis (SPA) attacks is necessary to give life,
meaning, and vitality into claim 1. Catalina Marketing Int’l., Inc. v.
Coolsavings.com, Inc., 289 F.3d 801, 808 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Rather, the
algorithm of claim 1 functions regardless of whether the effect of resisting
Simple Power Analysis is realized. Therefore, we are unpersuaded by
Appellant’s argument that claim 1 is directed to a specific process for
masking cryptographic operations or is necessarily rooted in computer
technology.
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred by failing “to provide any
analysis as to why the claimed combination of elements does not amount to
significantly more than an abstract idea.” App. Br. 18. Appellant contends
that “claim 1 recites specific operations for defining mask and fix values,
defining left-hand-side and right-hand side parameters, calculating
temporary values using the parameters, and outputting by exponentiation
modulation.” Reply Br. 4. However, as discussed above, these operations
are features of the patent-ineligible mathematical algorithm of claim 1.
6
Appeal 2017-005069
Application 13/835,402
Even together, they do not amount to something significantly more than the
mathematical algorithm of which they are a part. Moreover, we agree with
the Examiner that the other recitations (e.g., “receiving . . . inputs at the
processor,” “wherein the mask value and the fix value are stored in a first
location of the at least one memory,” “the fix value is stored in a second
location of the at least one memory’'') are merely features of a generic
computer “which do not constitute meaningful limitations that would
amount to significantly more than the abstract idea.” Ans. 7. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that none of the elements of claim 1, even in
combination, are sufficient to ensure that claim 1 amounts to significantly
more than the patent-ineligible abstract mathematical algorithm recited in
claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of
claim 1, and claims 2, 4—6, 8, and 21—25, which Appellant does not argue
separately. App. Br. 22.
Appellant further contends that claims “10, 13, 16, 26, and 28,
although different in scope from claim 1, [] recite additional elements that
the Examiner’s analysis did not consider” that provide “require inputting
specific types of data, using that data in specific ways to protect the
cryptographic operations, and outputting results.” App. Br. 21; see also id.
at 18. However, Appellant does not persuasively show error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that “these independent claims simply contain
variations ... of the same mathematical relationships/formulas already
identified in claim 1.” Ans. 10; see also Final Act. 6. Therefore, we also
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of independent claims 10,
7
Appeal 2017-005069
Application 13/835,402
13, 16, 26, and 28, and dependent claims 11, 12, 18—20, 27, and 29—31,
which Appellant does not argue separately. App. Br. 22.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—6, 8, 10—
13, 16, and 18-31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8