Ex Parte Emeott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

12493963 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/493,963 0612912009
22917 7590 03/21/2016
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS, INC.
IP Law Docketing
1301 EAST ALGONQUIN ROAD
IL02 5th Floor - SHS
SCHAUMBURG, IL 60196
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stephen P. Emeott
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.
CML07291 1327
EXAMINER
WANG, HARRIS C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/21/2016 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 STEPHEN P. EMEOTT and
ANTHONY J. BRASKICH
Appeal2014-004480
Application 12/493,963
Technology Center 2400
Before PETER P. CHEN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Motorola Solutions, Inc.
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal2014-004480
Application 12/493,963
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a method of triggering a key
delivery from a mesh key distributor. (Abstract). Generally, Appellants'
invention proactively pushes a derived key from the mesh key distributor to
mesh peers after a mesh station gains entry into the mesh network in order to
accelerate secure peer links. (Spec. i-f 7). Claims 1 and 14, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of triggering a transmission of a key
from a mesh key distributor, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a mesh station, at least one security
message to the mesh key distributor, wherein the at least one
security message includes a list of peer station identifiers;
deriving, by the mesh key distributor, a peer key for use
between a peer station identified in the list of peer station
identifiers and the mesh station; and
transmitting, by the mesh key distributor, a key push
message to the peer station to initiate a key push to the peer
station for the derived peer key.
14. A method of triggering a transmission of a key
from a mesh key distributor, the method comprising:
generating, by the mesh key distributor, a top level key
based upon one or more contributions of the mesh key
distributor and one or more contributions of a mesh station;
transmitting, by the mesh station, at least one security
message to the mesh key distributor, wherein the at least one
security message includes a list of peer station identifiers;
transmitting, by the mesh key distributor, the top level
key to the mesh station in response to receiving the at least one
security message;
deriving, by each of the mesh key distributor and the
mesh station, using the top level key, a peer key for use
2
Appeal2014-004480
Application 12/493,963
between a peer station identified in the list of peer station
identifiers and the mesh station;
transmitting, by the mesh key distributor, a key push
message to the peer station to initiate a key push to the peer
station for the derived peer key; and
executing a session key establishment protocol between
the mesh station and the peer station using the peer key to
secure a peer link.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination ofBraskich et al. (US 2008/0063204 Al;
published Mar. 13, 2008)2 and Castagnoli et al. (US 2006/0215582 Al;
published Sept. 28, 2006).
ANALYSIS
Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of
Braskich and Castagnoli teaches or suggests "transmitting, by the mesh key
distributor, a key push message to the peer station to initiate a key push to
the peer station for the derived peer key" as recited in independent claims 1
and 14?
The Examiner relies on the disclosure in paragraphs 78 and 96 of
Braskich to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. (Final Act. 4; Ans. 13-
14). The Examiner considers Braskich's mesh authenticator ("MA") to be
the claimed mesh station, and Braskich's Mesh Authenticator Pairwise
2 The Braskich reference issued as U.S. Patent No. 7,734,052 on June 8,
2010.
3
Appeal2014-004480
Application 12/493,963
Master Key ("PMK-MA") to be the claimed derived peer key. (Final Act. 4
(citing Braskich i-fi-123, 78)).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs because in Braskich the derived
peer key is delivered by a push message from the mesh key distributor
("MKD") to the mesh authenticator, rather than to the peer station as
claimed. (App. Br. 8).
We agree with Appellants. Braskich describes enabling secure
distribution of authentication key material between a mesh authenticator
("MA") (110) and a mesh key distributor ("MKD") (115). (Abstract).
Paragraph 78 of Braskich describes "[a] push protocol is initiated by the
MKD 115 delivering (unsolicited) the PMK-MA, followed by the MA 110
sending a confirmation message." Figure 8 of Braskich is reproduced
below:
110
1
115
l
D!STR!BUTOR
PMK--MA DEUVERY MESSAGE
805
PMK>MA CONFIRM MESSAGE
MESH KEY TRANSPORT PUSH PROTOCOL
J?JG. 8
Figure 8 depicts the described push protocol and in particular, the delivery of
the PMK-MA from the MKD 115 to the MA 110, not to a peer station
Paragraph 96 ofBraskich states, "the MA 110 decrypts the PMK-MA and
4
Appeal2014-004480
Application 12/493,963
then uses the PMK-MA to continue the security establishment with the MP
[mesh point] supplicant 120." The Examiner finds that the MA receiving the
key from the MKD and then sending it to the MP supplicant, as described in
paragraph 96, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. (See Ans. 13-14).
On this record, we do not agree with the Examiner. The disclosure in
Braskich does not show that the MKD is transmitting the key push message
to the peer station (MA supplicant), but rather to the MA.
Because \Ve are persuaded of Examiner e1Tor with regard to the
identified issue, which is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the
additional issues raised by AppeHants. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 14.
For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's 3 5 U.S. C. § 103 (a)
rejections of dependent claims 2-13, which were not separately argued by
Appellants.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-14 is
reversed.
REVERSED
5