Trend Micro Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 23, 2020

2019002480 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 23, 2020)

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.
14/223,807 03/24/2014 Bharath Kumar CHANDRASEKHAR 10033.023400 3877
168299 7590 10/23/2020
Okamoto & Benedicto LLP (Trend Micro)
P.O. BOX 641330
SAN JOSE, CA 95164-1330
EXAMINER
PARRY, CHRISTOPHER L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/23/2020 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BHARATH KUMAR CHANDRASEKHAR and
SHUANG JI
Appeal 2019-002480
Application 14/223,807
Technology Center 2400

Before DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17–19.
Claims 3, 4, 6, 9, 11, 14, 16, and 20 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Trend Micro,
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-002480
Application 14/223,807

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claims 1, 12, and 17 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced
below:
1. A system comprising:
a client device that receives a credential from a customer
that uses a cloud application hosted by a cloud computer system,
locally generates a plaintext encryption key for the customer,
uses the credential to encrypt the plaintext encryption key to
generate an encrypted encryption key, uses the plaintext
encryption key to encrypt plaintext data received from a cloud
application client into encrypted data, provides the encrypted
encryption key to a remotely located key server computer system
for storage, and forwards the encrypted data to a cloud computer
system for storage; and
the key server computer system that receives the encrypted
encryption key and stores the encrypted encryption key.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
O’Hare US 2012/0331088 Al Dec. 27, 2012
Wang US 2014/0143548 Al May 22, 2014
REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15, and 17–19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over O’Hare and Wang. Final
Act. 2–10.
Our review in this appeal is limited to the above rejection and the
issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP
§ 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1).
Appeal 2019-002480
Application 14/223,807

3
OPINION
Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
O’Hare and Wang teaches “us[ing] the credential to encrypt the plaintext
encryption key to generate an encrypted encryption key,” and “us[ing] the
plaintext encryption key to encrypt plaintext data received,” as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12 and 17. Appeal Br. 4–6; Reply
Br. 2–3. Specifically, Appellant argues that, although Wang describes a
“private key that is encrypted using [a] credential,” that private key is not
used to encrypt plaintext data and, instead, Wang encrypts plaintext data
“using a storage key . . . which is not encrypted by the credential.” Reply
Br. 3 (emphasis added); see Appeal Br. 4–5.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, O’Hare teaches “us[ing] the plaintext encryption key to
encrypt plaintext data received.” Ans. 3 (citing O’Hare ¶¶ 541–543); Final
Act. 2. As the Examiner points out (Final Act. 2), O’Hare describes that
“file ANYFILE1,” i.e., “plaintext data,” is encrypted “using a file session
key,” i.e., a “plaintext encryption key” (O’Hare ¶ 541). The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, Wang teaches “us[ing] the credential to encrypt
the plaintext encryption key to generate an encrypted encryption key.”
Ans. 3 (citing Wang ¶ 106, Abstract); Final Act. 3. Indeed, Wang describes
“encrypting[] the private key dkA of the user A using the credential of the
user A to obtain the first encrypted private key pkA1.” Wang ¶ 106.
Appellant’s argument that “Wang does not disclose using the user
credential to encrypt the storage key” is unavailing (Appeal Br. 4–5
(emphasis added)) because the Examiner’s combination relies on the user
credential encrypting Wang’s private key (Ans. 4–5; Final Act. 4). That is,
Appeal 2019-002480
Application 14/223,807

4
the Examiner’s combination does not incorporate Wang’s storage key, and
so, Appellant’s arguments based on Wang’s storage key are unpersuasive.
Further, Appellant’s argument that Wang’s “private key . . . is not
used to encrypt plaintext data” (Reply Br. 3) inappropriately attacks Wang
individually when the Examiner finds the combination of O’Hare and Wang
teaches the disputed limitations. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA
1981). As discussed above, the Examiner relies on O’Hare to teach
encrypting plaintext data with a plaintext key. The Examiner states that the
combination “modif[ies] O’Hare to include using the credential to encrypt
the plaintext encryption key . . . as taught by Wang.” Final Act. 4; see
Ans. 4–6. Even if Wang alone does not disclose that its private key is used
to encrypt data, the Examiner’s findings are based on the combination of
O’Hare and Wang.
Finally, to the extent Appellant argues O’Hare does not teach “us[ing]
the credential to encrypt the plaintext encryption key” (Appeal Br. 4), that
argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error because that argument does not
address the Examiner’s reliance on Wang to teach “us[ing] the credential to
encrypt the plaintext encryption key,” as discussed above. Final Act. 3
(citing Wang ¶ 106, Abstract); Ans. 3.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of O’Hare and Wang teaches “us[ing] the credential to encrypt
the plaintext encryption key to generate an encrypted encryption key,” and
“us[ing] the plaintext encryption key to encrypt plaintext data received,” as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 12 and 17. Appellant does
not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15,
18, and 19, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 12, and 17.
Appeal 2019-002480
Application 14/223,807

5
See Appeal Br. 6. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain
the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12, 13, 15,
and 17–19.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 7, 8,
10, 12, 13,
15, 17–19
103 O’Hare, Wang 1, 2, 5, 7, 8,
10, 12, 13,
15, 17–19

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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED