Ex Parte Cordella et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2018

13536653 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/536,653
89941 7590
HONEYWELL/S&S
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
FILING DATE
06/28/2012
03/29/2018
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Thomas Cordelia
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.
H0034902-5809/1121-354US1 8701
EXAMINER
PLECHA, THADDEUS J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2018 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):
patentservices-us@honeywell.com
pairdocketing@ssiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THOMAS CORDELLA and JOHN PROFUMO
Appeal2016-005302
Application 13/536,653
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-6, 9, 11-18, 20 and 21. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Honeywell International, Inc., as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Claim 10 has been canceled, and claims 7, 8, and 19 have been object to as
being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but indicated as containing
allowable subject matter if rewritten in independent form. See Final Act.
23.
Appeal2016-005302
Application 13/536,653
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to devices, systems, and techniques for
authenticating encrypted memory content using redundant encryption of the
memory content. See Spec. i-f 3. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and
reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
generating a first encryption key for encrypting data to be
stored by a memory at a selected memory location;
generating a second encryption key for encrypting the
data to be stored by the memory at the selected memory
location, wherein generating the second encryption key is not
based on the first encryption key, and wherein generating the
first encryption key is not based on the second encryption key;
encrypting the data to be stored by the memory using the
first encryption key, wherein encrypting the data using the first
encryption key generates cipher text that is decryptable back
into the data using the first encryption key;
encrypting the data to be stored by the memory using the
second encryption key different than the first encryption key,
wherein encrypting the data using the second encryption key
generates an authentication tag that is decryptable back into the
data using the second encryption key; and
storing the cipher text and authentication tag in the
memory.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 12, 13, 15, 16, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schneider (US 2010/0054475 Al,
published Mar. 4, 2010) and Little (US 2005/0232415 Al, published Oct.
20, 2005). See Final Act. 3-13.
2
Appeal2016-005302
Application 13/536,653
Claims 3 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schneider, Little, and Leech (US 2010/0183146 A 1,
published July 22, 2010). See Final Act. 13-14.
Claims 6, 11, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Schneider, Little, and Pean (US 2013/0080790 Al,
published Mar. 28, 2013). See Final Act. 14--20.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Schneider, Little, Pean, and Ybarra (US 8,375,225 Bl, issued Feb. 12,
2013). See Final Act. 21-22.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Schneider, Little, and Hawkes (US 2004/0019782 Al, published Jan.
29, 2004). See Final Act. 22-23.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We concur with Appellants'
contention that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Schneider
and Little teaches or suggests "generating a second encryption key ... ,
wherein generating the second encryption key is not based on the first
encryption key, and wherein generating the first encryption key is not based
on the second encryption key," as recited in claim 1. Appellants specifically
assert:
Claim 1 recites "generating a first encryption key for
encrypting data to be stored by a memory at a selected memory
location" and "generating a second encryption key for
encrypting the data to be stored by the memory at the selected
memory location." As such, both the first encryption key and
3
Appeal2016-005302
Application 13/536,653
the second encryption key are generated to encrypt the same
data. In contrast, in the embodiment of Little cited by the
Office, Little discloses "encrypting the first portion of data
using the first unique key" and "encrypting the second portion
of data using the second unique key." As such, Little discloses
encrypting different portions of data using the first unique key
and the second unique key.
App. Br. 7.
Regarding the propriety of the proposed combination, Appellants
contend
However, the cited portions of Little do not account for
why it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the
arts at the time of the invention was made to modify Schneider
with the alleged specific disclosure by Little relating to deriving
a first unique key from an encryption key and an address of a
first portion of data, deriving a second unique key from the
encryption key and the address of a second portion of data,
encrypting the first portion of data using the first unique key,
and encrypting the second portion of data using the second
unique key, which was cited by the Office to reject claim 1.
App. Br. 9. Appellants further contend (id.), absent impermissible hindsight,
modifying Schneider's encryption scheme of a random block with an
archive key and Message Authentication Code (MAC) key, which is derived
from the archive key, with the actual teaching of Little related to encrypting
different blocks of data using different encryption keys would not have
resulted in the claimed invention. See Schneider i-f 12; Little i-f 10.
Appellants conclude that the cited portions of Little which are identified as
the reason for modifying Schneider with the first and the second Keys of
Little (see Final Act. 5 (citing Little i-fi-1 7, 8); Ans. 4---6) are not sufficient to
justify the proposed combination because such reasoning stems from
Appellants' disclosure. App. Br. 9.
4
Appeal2016-005302
Application 13/536,653
We agree with Appellants that the suggested modifications to
Schneider based on the disclosure of Little would not be reasonably
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have resulted in replacing
Schneider's archive key and MAC key with the keys that are not derived
from one another, as disclosed by Little. At best, the Examiner's proposed
combination is based on hindsight, and not based on the knowledge of the
skilled artisan or any teaching of the applied references. In other words, the
Examiner's proposed rationale does not articulate why the skilled artisan
would modify Schneider's archive key and the MAC key, which is derived
from the archive key, with the keys disclosed in Little, or how it would have
resulted in the claimed invention. Such rationale does not rise to the level of
an articulated line of reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int'!. Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007).
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that, Appellants have shown the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, as well as other independent claims 12
and 20 that recite similar features. Therefore, in view of the above
discussion and the fact that the Examiner did not point to any teachings in
the other applied prior art references to overcome the deficiencies of
Schneider and Little, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1, 12, and 20, nor of the remaining claims dependent
thereon.
5
Appeal2016-005302
Application 13/536,653
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1---6, 9, 11-
18, 20 and 21.
REVERSED
6