Ex Parte Bertoni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

13196568 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/196,568 08/02/2011
38106 7590 08/29/2016
Seed IP Law Group/ST (EP ORIGIN A TING)
701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7092
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Guido Bertoni
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.
852663.576 4108
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, LINGLAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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 GUIDO BER TONI and FABIO SOZZANI
Appeal2015-002246
Application 13/196,568
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and SCOTT B. HOW ARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .. .. , 1 .. • .. ,..... ,- T T r'1 I'\ l\ -1 ,..... Al / '\. I"" , "1
Appeuants' seeK our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me
Examiner's final decisions rejecting claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify STMicroelectronics (Grenoble 2) SAS and
STMiroelectronics S.r.l. as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-002246
Application 13/196,568
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to the protection of data transmitted in
the form of a binary stream or by a bus. Spec., 2:5---6.
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A method, comprising:
encrypting or decrypting a binary data stream
by,
[L 1] applying a cryptographic function using
a secret key to a data block to generate an
encryption input block;
[L2] logically combining bits of the
encryption input block to generate a binary
encryption stream, wherein the encryption input
block is not determinable solely from the binary
encryption stream; and
applying a reversible logic operation to
combine each bit of the binary data stream with a
bit of the binary encryption stream.
The Rejections
Claims 1-10, 14, and 19-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Graunke (US 2006/0023875 Al; Feb. 2, 2006) and Elbaz (US
2008/0232581 Al; Sept. 25, 2008).
Claims 11-13, 15-18, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Graunke, Elbaz, and Goto, (US 2010/0250928 Al; Sept. 30, 2010).
2
Appeal2015-002246
Application 13/196,568
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-10, 14, and 19-23
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because
"the cited portion of Graunke does not appear to disclose" limitation L 1.
App. Br. 24. With regard to limitation L2, Appellants contend, "Elbaz is
silent as to how the encryption bit stream used to encrypt the scrambled data
block is generated." App. Br. 25-26; Reply Br. 5---6.
We have considered Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. We are not
persuaded by Appellants' arguments for at least the following reasons.
With regard to limitation L 1, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument because it reduces to an assertion that the claim language is not
disclosed verbatim in the cited Graunke. Obviousness under Section 103
does not require an ipsissimis verb is test. That is, identity of terminology is
not required. In re May, 574 F.2d 1082, 1090 (CCPA 1978). Rather, the
obviousness inquiry is directed to whether the cited references would teach
or at least suggest the claimed subject matter to one of ordinary skill in the
art at the time the invention. KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
417 (2007). A prima facie case of obviousness requires "some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Here, the
Examiner finds, and we agree:
In this case, the cited paragraph 0015 of Graunke clearly teaches
"applying a cryptographic function using a secret key to a data
block to generate an encryption input block" because Graunke
disclosed in paragraph 0015 a key stream generator 104 (which
generates input data for stream cipher encryption process), and
3
Appeal2015-002246
Application 13/196,568
further disclosed in paragraph 0015 that "In one embodiment, the
key stream generator uses an AES cipher", as AES is a known
block cipher (i.e., a cryptographic function) that uses an
encryption key (i.e., secret key) that generates encrypted data, as
Graunke teaches using AES in key stream generator, the result
of the application of AES is a key stream for stream cipher, i.e.,
it is input for stream encryption, therefore, it is an encryption
input block.
Ans. 3; Final Act. 5.
With regard to limitation L2, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument because it is not responsive to the Examiner's findings. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, Graunke teaches or suggests generating an
encryption bit stream from an encryption input block. Ans. 3; Final Act. 5.
The Examiner further cites Elbaz has teaching or suggesting logically
combing bits of the input data block in order to improve detection of
modification of the block. Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 6.
To the extent Appellants argue Elbaz teaches application of
scrambling bits of a data stream prior to encryption (App. Br. 25-26; Reply
Br. 5---6), we are not so persuaded. Appellants' argument amounts to an
assertion that Elbaz's scrambling cannot be bodily incorporated into
Graunke. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the
primary reference . . . . Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art."
In re Keller, 642 F. 2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); accord In re Sneed, 710 F.2d
1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) ("[I]t is not necessary that the inventions of the
references be physically combinable to render obvious the invention under
review."). Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner does not seek to
4
Appeal2015-002246
Application 13/196,568
bodily incorporate Elbaz' s scrambling into Graunke, but instead relies on
specific teachings of each reference. Ans. 3-5; Final Act. 5-6. We note
Appellant does not proffer persuasive evidence that the Examiner's
combination would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of
ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1. Appellant advances no further arguments on claims 2-10, 14,
19-23. App. Br. 26-32. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these claims.
Claims 11-13, 15-18, and 24
Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 11-13
because "[t]here does not appear to be any discussion in the cited portion of
Goto" of the limitations of claim 11 for which the Examiner cites Goto.
App. Br. 28. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because it
reduces to an assertion that the claim language is not disclosed verbatim in
the cited Goto reference. As discussed above in the context of claim 1,
limitation LI, obviousness is not an ipsissimis verbis test. May, 574 F.2d
at 1090. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 11. Appellant advances no further arguments concerning
claims 12, 13, 15-18, and 24. App. Br. 26-32. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of these claims.
5
Appeal2015-002246
Application 13/196,568
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1-24.
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