Ex Parte Eklund

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2017

12722436 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 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.
12/722,436 03/11/2010 Don C. Eklund II 113748-6039US 3112
103865
Procopio - SPE
525 B Street
Suite 2200
7590 03/24/2017 EXAMINER
ZHAO, DON GORDON
San Diego, CA 92101 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/24/2017 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):
docketing @ procopio .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DON C. EKLUND II
Appeal 2016-006001
Application 12/722,436
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
KIMBERLY McGRAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—4, 7—18, and 21—23. Claims 5, 6, 19, and 20 have been
canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellant, the invention relates to “controlling access to
content using multiple encryptions” (Spec. 2,11. 12—14).
Appeal 2016-006001
Application 12/722,436
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is representative:
1. A non-transitory storage medium storing a program of a
computer implemented method of controlling access to content
using multiple encryptions, the method comprising:
receiving content comprising media data;
first encrypting a substantial portion of the content using a
primary key;
selecting a subset of the substantial portion of the content
encrypted with the primary key;
second encrypting the selected subset of the substantial
portion of the content using a secondary key different from the
primary key,
wherein the selected subset is less data than the substantial
portion of the content,
wherein as a result of the first encrypting and the second
encrypting, the substantial portion of the content is encrypted
using the primary key, and the selected subset of the substantial
portion is encrypted using both the primary key and the
secondary key;
providing the primary key to all authorized recipients of
the content and the secondary key to only a specifically targeted
recipient of the content.
C. REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1—3, 7—12, 15, 18, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Troyansky et al. (US
2003/0056118 Al; pub. Mar. 20, 2003) (“Troyansky”), Pauker et al. (US
2010/00111297 Al; pub. May 6, 2010) (“Pauker”), and Orsini et al. (US
2006/0177061 Al; pub. Aug. 10, 2006) (“Orsini”).
2
Appeal 2016-006001
Application 12/722,436
2. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Troyansky, Pauker, Orsini, and Engel et al. (US
2008/0034197 Al; pub. Feb. 7, 2008).
3. Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Troyansky, Pauker, Orsini, and Singhal (US
2008/0049938 Al; pub. Feb. 28, 2008).
4. Claims 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Troyansky, Pauker, Orsini, and Seshadri (US
2004/0193871 Al; pub. Sep. 30, 2004).
5. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Troyansky, Pauker, Orsini, and Pedlow (US
2007/0242829 Al; pub. Oct. 18, 2007).
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that the combination of Troyansky, Pauker and Orsini teaches or suggests a
“first encrypting a substantial portion of the content using a primary key;”
“selecting a subset of the substantial portion...;” and “second encrypting the
selected subset. . . using a secondary key ...” (claim 1, emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Troyansky
1. Troyanksy discloses encrypting payload information using a first
encryption key in a first data processor and then encrypting the payload
3
Appeal 2016-006001
Application 12/722,436
information encrypted using the first encryption key using a second
encryption key in the second data processor (Abst.).
Pauker
2. Pauker discloses selectively accessing different portions of a data item
(1149). For example, a plaintext data item (such as a credit card number)
may be made up of two parts: the leading twelve digits and the last four
digits (1150), wherein the leading twelve digits are encrypted using first
cryptographic key while the last four digits are encrypted using a second
cryptographic key (1151).
3. Different keys may be distributed to different users depending on the
level of access granted to each user (| 155).
Orsini
4. Orsini discloses a secure data parser that parses data, splits the data
into multiple portions, and then the original data, portions of the data, or
both are encrypted for additional security (Abst.). By splitting the data and
placing portions of the data in different storage facilities, no single storage
facility includes sufficient encrypted data to recreate the original data, and
thus, increases security and provides for maintained trust in the data even if
one storage facility is compromised (1124). For example, Orsini adds
another layer of encryption to each share of the data to remove any
possibility of compromise of secured data (1308).
IV. ANALYSIS
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellant contends that “the combination of Troy, Pauker, and Orsini
is still missing the second encryption in which the selected subset of the
encrypted substantial portion (that was encrypted with the primary key) is
4
Appeal 2016-006001
Application 12/722,436
now encrypted with a secondary key” (App. Br. 16). In particular, Appellant
contends that although Orsini describes “data splitting module... for splitting
any type or form of sensitive data,” the reference “fails to teach or suggest a
second encrypting a subset of the original data that was first encrypted” (id.
at 17).
We have considered all of Appellant’s arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellant’s contentions regarding the
Examiner’s rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner’s findings,
and find no error with the Examiner’s combination of the references and the
conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combined
teachings.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, “Pauker discloses a substantial
portion of the content is encrypted by a first key” (Ans. 5—6; FF 2). In
particular, we agree that “Pauker encrypts a portion of the content in the first
layer of encryption” (id., emphasis added).
Further, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Troyansky
discloses “double encryption where the encrypted content with the primary
key may be encrypted again using a second key” (Ans. 5; FF 1). Thus, we
agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Troyansky for teaching and
suggesting such “second encrypting” using “a secondary key” (claim 1).
Although Appellant contends that Orsini fails to teach or suggest “a
second encrypting” of the subset of the original data “that was first
encrypted” (App. Br. 16), as the Examiner points out, Orsini also teaches
5
Appeal 2016-006001
Application 12/722,436
and suggests “that the second layer of encryption can be made on a subset of
the encrypted data of the first layer of encryption” (Ans. 6, FF 4).
Thus, we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Troyansky, Pauker and Orsini teaches and suggests detecting
the contested limitations recited in claim 1.
We conclude that a person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading
Troyanski’s teaching and suggestion of “double encryption where the
encrypted content with the primary key may be encrypted again using a
second key” (Ans. 5; FF 1), and Orsini’s teaching and suggestion “that the
second layer of encryption can be made on a subset of the encrypted data of
the first layer of encryption” (Ans. 6, FF 4), would have found it obvious to
apply a second encryption to a selected subset of data such as that of Pauker
(credit card digits) (FF 2) such that the data that was encrypted with the
primary key is now encrypted with a secondary key.
The Supreme Court has stated the “combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007). When considering obviousness of a combination of known
elements, the operative question is thus “whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions” {Id. at 417). The skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” Id. at 421.
Here, Appellant has not provided any evidence that such modification
to data splitting for security as set forth in Pauker to include a second
encryption on the already encrypted data (Troyansky and Orsini) would have
been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art”
6
Appeal 2016-006001
Application 12/722,436
(see Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007)), or would have yielded unexpected results. Instead, we find
Appellant’s invention is simply a modification of familiar prior art teachings
(as taught or suggested by the cited references) that would have realized a
predictable result (KSR, 550 U.S. at 421).
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of
representative claim 1, independent claims 15 and 18 reciting similar
limitations and falling therewith (App. Br. 18), and claims 2, 3, 7—12, 21,
and 23 depending therefrom and not separately argued (id.) over Troyansky,
Pauker and Orsini.
As to claim 10, although Appellant argues that Troyansky “does not
teach or suggest selecting different subset of the substantial portion of the
content for each specifically targeted recipient of the content” (id.), we
instead agree with the Examiner’s reliance on Pauker for disclosing and
suggesting “a different subset of the substantial portion of the content is
selected for targeted user” (Ans. 8; FF 3). We adopt the Examiner’s
findings, which we incorporate herein by reference.
With respect to claims 4, 13, 14, 16, 17, and 22, depending
respectively from claims 1 and 15, Appellant merely contends “since Engel
[or Singhal or Seshadri or Pedlow] does not disclose the base limitations of
claim 1 [or 15] ... , claim 4 [or 13 or 14 or 16 or 17 or 22] should be
allowable over the combination of Troy, Pauker, Orsini, and Engel [or
Singhal or Seshadri or Pedlow]” (App. Br. 19—23). However, as discussed
above, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that the combination
Troyansky, Pauker and Orsini teaches and suggests the contested limitations
of claims 1 and 15. Thus, we also affirm the rejections of: dependent claim
7
Appeal 2016-006001
Application 12/722,436
4 over Troyansky, Pauker, and Orsini, in further view of Engel; dependent
claims 13 and 14 over Troyansky, Pauker, and Orsini, in further view of
Singhal; dependent claims 16 and 17 over Troyansky, Pauker, and Orsini, in
further view of Seshadri; and, dependent claim 22 over Troyansky, Pauker,
and Orsini, in further view of Pedlow.
V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 7—18, and 21—23
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
8