Ex Parte PRUSS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2018

14587055 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/587,055 12/31/2014 BRIAN W. PRUSS
22917 7590 12/10/2018
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
500 W. Monroe
43rd Floor
Chicago, IL 60661
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.
PATCM16888-US-PRI 9646
EXAMINER
CATTUNGAL, DEREENA T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2018 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):
USAdocketing@motorolasolutions.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN W. PRUSS, MARK A. BOERGER,
ROBERT HORVATH, and ADDAM L. KRUCEK
Appeal2018-003660 1
Application 14/587,055
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Motorola Solutions,
Inc. (Br. 3).
Appeal2018-003660
Application 14/587,055
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants 'Disclosed Invention
Appellants' disclosed invention pertains to digital radio
communications (Spec. ,r 1 ), and specifically to a digital public safety radio
communications standard for first-responders and homeland
security/emergency response professionals which uses a Pre-Shared Key
(PSK) for Internet Key Exchange (IKE) over an Internet Protocol (IP) link
(Title; Spec. ,r,r 1, 2; Abs.). Appellants disclose and claim a method of PSK-
authenticated IKE that generates an IKE identification payload (Fig. 1, 100)
including a user ID field (Fig. 1, 112), a key ID field identifying a PSK (Fig.
1, 116), and a separator (Fig. 1, 114) between the user and key ID fields that
allows for wildcard rules to be applied (Spec. ,r 20; Fig. 1; Abs.; claims 1
and 10). Appellants disclose that (i) the separator can be "in the form of an
'@' character" (Spec. ,r 20), or can be "in the form of an '.' character"
(Spec. ,r 25) between the user ID field and key ID field, and (ii) one or more
other different separators can be used between the identifiers (Spec. ,r,r 21,
22).
2
Appeal2018-003660
Application 14/587,055
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added to key
portions of the claim at issue, read as follows:
1. A method of integrating a key management system
with a Pre-Shared Key (PSK)-authenticated Internet Key
Exchange (IKE), the method comprising:
generating, via a first computing device, an IKE
Identification Payload including an Identification Data field
compnsmg:
a user identifier (ID) field uniquely identifying one
or more of a user of the first computing device, the first
computing device and a connection between the first computing
device and another computing device;
a key ID field uniquely identifying a PSK; and
a separator between the user ID field and the key
ID field, the separator allowing for wildcard rules to be applied
to the user ID field or the key ID field; and
transmitting, from the first computing device to a second
computing device as part of the IKE, the IKE Identification
Payload.
The Examiner's Re} ections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(a)
as failing to provide adequate written description of the claimed invention.
Final Act. 3--4. Because the Examiner has withdrawn the§ 112 rejection
(Ans. 3), we will not address this rejection or Appellants' arguments directed
thereto.
(2) Claims 1--4, 9-11, 16, 17, and 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Kataoka (US 2010/0122338 Al;
published May 13, 2010) and Sullivan (US 2002/0085579 Al; published
July 4, 2002). Final Act. 4--10.
3
Appeal2018-003660
Application 14/587,055
(3) Claims 5-8, 12-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the base combination of Kataoka and
Sullivan taken with various tertiary references. Final Act. 10-16.
Appellants ' Contentions
Appellants primarily argue the merits of claim 1, and rely on those
arguments as to the patentability of all remaining claims 2-22 (see Br. 8).
As to independent claim 1, Appellants contend (Br. 5) that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because, inter alia, the
base combination of Kataoka and Sullivan fails to show, teach, or suggest
(1) transmitting a key ID field identifying a PSK; and/or (2) using a wildcard
to represent less than an entire field, as recited in independent claim 1.
Based on Appellants' arguments, and because claims 2--4, 9-11, 16, 1 7, and
20-22 contain commensurate limitations, we select claim 1 as representative
of claims 1--4, 9-11, 16, 17, and 20-22 rejected over the base combination
of Kataoka and Sullivan. For similar reasons, we decide the outcome of
claims 5-8, 12-15, 18, and 19, which ultimately depend from independent
claims 1 and 10, and the same basis as claim 1.
Reply Brief
No Reply Brief has been presented. Therefore, Appellants have not
disputed the Examiner's articulated reasoning and findings found at pages
3-7 of the Answer, citing portions of (i) Sullivan's paragraphs 27-29, 51-
53, 55, 56, 58, and 61 as teaching or suggesting the separator recited in
claim 1; and (ii) Kataoka's paragraphs 65, 83, and 99-103 as teaching or
suggesting a unique identifier for a PSK, recited as "a key ID field" in claim
1.
4
Appeal2018-003660
Application 14/587,055
Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 7), the
following principal issue is presented on appeal:
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-22 as being unpatentable
over the base combination of Kataoka and Sullivan because the combination
fails to teach or suggest:
(i) "a key ID field uniquely identifying a PSK;" and/or
(ii) "a separator between the user ID field and the key ID field, the
separator allowing for wildcard rules to be applied to the user ID field or the
key ID field," as recited in representative independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 4--16) in light
of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 7-8) that the Examiner
has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments. With regard to
representative independent claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken (Final Act. 4--6), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-7) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We
concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we
provide the following for emphasis.
Key ID Field Uniquely Identifying a PSK
Kataoka discloses that a PSK for IKE is generated in the DHCP server
13 using a circuit ID of a home gateway device 10, and "the encryption key
received from the DHCP server 13 is used as a pre-shared key to exchange
keys by means of IKE (Internet Key Exchange)" (Kataoka ,r,r 65, 83).
5
Appeal2018-003660
Application 14/587,055
Kataoka also discloses establishing communications by transmitting the PSK
encryption key along with identification information (i.e., an identifier) for
the femtocell base station gateway 14 to allow the device 10 to register with
the gateway 14. Kataoka further discloses that "the identifier is used as an
encryption key" (Kataoka ,r 100), or "the identifier is used as an IKE pre-
shared key" (Kataoka ,r 101 ). The identification information includes a
circuit ID (see, e.g., Fig. 6, 63), an IP address (see, e.g., Fig. 6, 64), and
individual ID (see, e.g., Fig. 6, 62) (i.e., a user ID) of the home gateway
device (see, e.g., Fig. 1, 10), and is used to verify access authorization
(Kataoka ,r,r 15, 16, 68, 69). In other words, the information in Kataoka's
table (see, e.g., Fig. 6, 60), including the PSK key, serves to uniquely
identify the PSK so that authorization can be verified.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Kataoka teaches or suggests
transmitting "a key ID field uniquely identifying a PSK" as recited in claim
1 (see Final Act. 5; Ans. 3-5). Specifically, we agree with the Examiner
(Final Act. 5; Ans. 3, 5) that because Kataoka's encryption key (see, e.g.,
Fig. 6, key 65) is a pre-shared key (PSK) (see Fig. 8; ,r,r 65, 83), the key
functions to uniquely identify a PSK.
Appellants' argument that "the key ID field identifies a pre-shared
key, but does not actually include the PSK" (Br. 7) ( emphasis added), is
unpersuasive as this argument is not commensurate in scope with the
language of representative claim 1. See In re Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d 1362,
1369 (Fed. Cir. 1998) ("[The] proffered facts ... are not commensurate with
the claim scope and are therefore unpersuasive."); In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
13 48 ( CCP A 19 82) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied
upon for patentability). The language of claim 1 does not limit the key ID
6
Appeal2018-003660
Application 14/587,055
field in any way, other than it must perform the recited function of
identifying a PSK. In other words, there is no negative limitation present
that the key ID field cannot include the PSK itself.
In this light, Appellants' contention (Br. 7) that Kataoka fails to teach
or suggest transmitting an identifier that "uniquely identifies a PSK" is
unpersuasive.
Separator Allowing for Wildcard Rules to be Applied
Appellants' contention that although Sullivan teaches wildcards, "the
use of wildcards in Sullivan is limited to using a wildcard to represent an
entire field" (Br. 7), is not commensurate in scope with the language of
representative claim 1, and is therefore not persuasive. See supra In re
Hiniker Co., 150 F.3d at 1369; In re Self, 671 F.2d at 1348. Representative
claim 1 does not recite using a wildcard within a field, as opposed to
representing an entire field ( e.g., the user ID field) as in Sullivan, as argued
by Appellants (Br. 7). See CollegeNet, Inc. v. Apply Yourself, Inc., 418 F.3d
1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Instead, claim 1 requires a separator (which is
taught by Sullivan's"," character) between the user ID and key fields that
"allow[ s] for wildcard rules to be applied to the user ID field." And,
Appellants admit "Sullivan does teach the use of wildcards" (Br. 7).
Appellants' Specification describes the use of wildcards as follows:
In these embodiments, the user IDs that are not mapped
to an invalid PSK or a valid PSK can be mapped to an invalid
or valid PSK using a wildcard, such as "*". For example, an
"ipsec.secrets" file entry could be: '*@"Unique Key ID" :
PSK "v+ Nkx Y9LLZvwj4qCC2o/ gGrWD2d2ljL "'.
Spec. ,r 48 ( emphasis added). Sullivan describes a wildcard in the
form of a "*" character where the wildcard ("*") is used in place of a
7
Appeal2018-003660
Application 14/587,055
"user ID" field, such as "FRED" (Figs. 1, 4A-I; ,r,r 28, 29, 33, 52, 53,
55, 56, 58, 61; Abs.), and the use of a separator in the form of a","
character (see ,r,r 52, 53).
In this light, Sullivan's use of a wildcard "*" for the user ID
field 110 in Figure 1 (see ,r 33; Figs. 4A-I; see also e.g., Fig. 4C, user
ID field 420) is encompassed by the claim limitation recited in claim 1
of "allowing for wildcard rules to be applied to the user ID field or the
key ID field." In other words, we agree with the Examiner that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of claim 1 only requires the
wildcard rules be applied to either the user ID field or the key ID
field, and since Sullivan applies wildcards to the user ID field, this
meets the disputed claim limitation.
Summary
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
representative claim 1, as well as claims 2--4, 9-11, 16, 17, and 20-22
grouped therewith as being obvious over the base combination of Kataoka
and Sullivan. For similar reasons, and because (i) Appellants rely on the
arguments presented as to claim 1 in arguing dependent claims 5-8, 12-15,
18, and 19; and (ii) claims 5-8, 12-15, 18, and 19 ultimately depend from
respective ones of claims 1 and 10, we also sustain the remaining four
obviousness rejections of claims 5-8, 12-15, 18, and 19 over the base
combination taken with various tertiary references.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-22 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
8
Appeal2018-003660
Application 14/587,055
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22 are 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§§ 41.50(±), 4I.52(b) (2013).
AFFIRMED
9