Ex Parte Forsberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2016

12936332 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/936,332 12/17/2010
12358 7590 08/31/2016
Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Dan Lars Anders Forsberg
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.
NC64062US-PCT 1807
EXAMINER
POPHAM, JEFFREY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2016 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAN LARS ANDERS FORSBERG PENTTI VAL TTERI NIEMI,
and MARC BLOMMAERT
Appeal2015-005552
Application 12/936,332
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, LINZY T. MCCARTNEY, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 50-75, which are all of the pending claims.
Claims 1--49 have been previously canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-005552
Application 12/936,332
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates "generally to wireless
communication technology," and more particularly, to "providing
cryptographical key separation following a handover" (Spec. 1, 11. 6-8).
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
Claim 57 is exemplary:
5 7. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code,
the at least one processor, the at least one memory, and the
computer program code configured to cause the apparatus to at
least:
receive a handover command from a source access point;
calculate, in response to receipt of the handover
command, a key based at least in part upon a first intermediary
value; and
calculate a second intermediary value based at least in
part upon the first intermediary value,
wherein the second intermediary value enables
calculation of one or more keys in a subsequent handover.
C. REJECTIONS
Claims 57----fJ2, and 70-75 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
over 3GPP ("3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification
Group Services and System Aspects; 3GPP System Architecture Evolution
(SAE): Security Architecture; (Release 8S) 33.401 V.8.2.1 December 2008).
Claims 50-56, and 63-69 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the teachings of 3GPP and Brusilovsky (US
2009/0209259 Al; Aug. 20, 2009).
2
Appeal2015-005552
Application 12/936,332
IL ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that 3GPP teaches computer program code configured to "calculate, in
response to receipt of the handover command, a key based at least in part
upon a first intermediary value" and "calculate a second intermediary value
based at least in part upon the first intermediary value" (claim 57, emphasis
added). In particular, the issue turns on whether 3GPP teaches that the
calculations of a key and an intermediary value (second intermediary value)
are based at least in part on another intermediary value (i.e., the calculation
for both is partly based on a first intermediary value).
III. ANALYSIS
35 U.S. C. § 102(a)
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants contend "3GPP's 'KeNB' cannot possibly be the 'first
intermediary value' because 'KeNB' is not used to calculate both a 'key' and
a 'second intermediary value', as required by claim 57'' (App. Br. 10). That
is, according to Appellants, even assuming 3GPP discloses a first key (new
KeNB) and a second key (KeNB*), "[t]he first key and the second key (which
the Examiner appears to equate to the claim 57 'second intermediary value')
are not calculated from the same value" (App. Br. 16).
3
Appeal2015-005552
Application 12/936,332
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. Based on the record before us, however, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner erred in finding that claim 57 is anticipated by 3GPP.
As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims
their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret
claims broadly and reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless
must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en bane).
As the Examiner points out, "claim 57 does not require that a first
intermediary value is used to calculate both a key and a second intermediary
value, as Appellants contends," but merely that the calculation is "based at
least in part upon" the first intermediary value (Ans. 2). As the Examiner
notes, "the claims at hand do not include a limitation stating that the first
intermediary value is a direct input to a formula or algorithm used to
calculate the second intermediary value" (Ans. 4). We, therefore, are
unpersuaded the Examiner erred in finding 3GPP discloses calculating a
"key" and a "second intermediary value" "based at least in part upon the first
intermediary value" as recited in claim 57,
In particular, we find no error with the Examiner's interpretation of
the claimed "first intermediary value" as encompassing 3GPP's "previous
KeNB" and the claimed "key" as encompassing 3GPP's "new KeNB" (Ans. 3).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, "3GPP discloses calculating a key
based at least in part upon a first intermediary value in calculation of a new
KeNB from a previous KeNB" (Ans. 3). Thus, we agree that 3GPP discloses
"causing the apparatus to calculate, in response to receipt of the handover
4
Appeal2015-005552
Application 12/936,332
command, a key based at least in part upon a first intermediary value" (Ans.
4).
Further, as the Examiner finds, "[i]n a subsequent handover, yet
another new KeNB will be generated . . . using the KeNB that was generated
above" (id.). Thus, the Examiner finds, and we agree, "since the KeNB
generated above was based at least in part on a previous KeNB, the next new
KeNB* is also based at least in part on the previous KeNB" (id.). That is, as the
Examiner explains, since the new KeNB* is generated using the KeNB that was
generated using the previous KeNB, "this new KeNB* is clearly a second
intermediary value that is generated at least in part upon the previous KeNB,
on which the current KeNB is based" (id.).
We find no error with the Examiner's interpretation of the claimed
"second intermediary value" as encompassing 3GPP's "new KeNB*" (id.).
As the Examiner explains, since 3GPP's "second intermediary value" is
generated using the "key" that was generated using the previous KeNB, i.e.,
the "first intermediary value," both the "key" and the "second intermediary
value" are generated based at least in part on this previous key/ "first
intermediary value" (id.). In particular, because calculation of the new
KeNB/ "second intermediary value" is based on the "key" which is based on
the previous KeNBI "first intermediary value," we agree with the Examiner
that its calculation is also (although indirectly) based at least in part upon
the previous KeNBI "first intermediary value" required to calculate the key
(id.).
Thus, contrary to Appellants' contentions, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in relying on 3GPP as disclosing calculating "a second
intermediary value based at least in part upon the first intermediary value" as
5
Appeal2015-005552
Application 12/936,332
recited in claim 57. Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for
independent claim 70, and claims 58---62 and claims 71-75 respectively
depending from claims 57 and 70, separate from those of claim 57 (App. Br.
16). Accordingly, claims 58---62 and 70-75 fall with claim 57 over 3GPP.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants contend "Brusilovsky at best discloses sending a list of
keys to the source eNB, not the target access point as required by claim 50"
wherein claim 50 requires the "target access point" to "handle the
communications after a handover of a user equipment device from a source
access point, not the source eNB or just any other eNB" (App. Br. 18).
Thus, Appellants contend "3GPP and Brusilovsky fail to disclose or suggest
claim 50 'send a path switch acknowledgement message including the
second intermediary value to the target access point'" (id.).
However, although Appellants contend that claim 50 requires that the
target access point handles the communications "after a handover," as the
Examiner points out, claim 50 instead requires calculating a key "in
response to a handover" (Ans. 11 ). As the Examiner also points out, the
claim "does not state what being 'in response to a handover' actually
comprises," and in particular, "the claim does not state whether this
calculation occurs during or after handover commencement or completion"
(id.). We agree with the Examiner's broad but reasonable interpretation that
"in response to a handover" encompasses occurring "during a handover"
which is "in response to handover commencement," or "after a handover has
finished" which is "in response to a handover completion" (id.).
Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, we find no
error in the Examiner's reliance on the combination of 3GPP in view of
6
Appeal2015-005552
Application 12/936,332
Brusilovsky for teaching and suggesting calculating a key "in response to a
handover" from a source access point "to the target access point" (claim 50).
In particular, we agree with the Examiner's finding Brusilovsky discloses
and suggests a message being from "from 'MME' to 'Target eNB"' (Ans.
12). As the Examiner explains, "the eNB [is] being handed over to, and is,
thus, the target eNB" even though "after handover, the target eNB is going
to be considered a source eNB" (id.). Thus, according to the Examiner,
Brusilovsky' s "figure 3 shows a handover procedure that is in response to
handover commencement of a UE from a source eNB to a target eNB" (Ans.
13).
Further, as the Examiner notes, even assuming arguendo that claim
50's "in response to handover means occurring after handover ... the target
access point of the handover is actually the source access point from that
point further" (id.). That is, after handover, "the target access point is now
the source access point in the next handover" wherein the acknowledgement
message "is sent to the now source eNB, which would have been the target
of a previous handover which has been completed" (id.). In view of the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, we are unpersuaded of
Examiner error in finding Brusilovsky discloses and suggests a "handover"
from a source access point "to the target access point," as required by claim
50.
Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 50 over 3GPP in view of Brusilovsky. Appellants do not
provide substantive arguments for independent claim 63, and claims 51-56
and claims 64---69 respectively depending from claims 50 and 63, separate
7
Appeal2015-005552
Application 12/936,332
from those ofclaim 50 (App. Br. 18). Accordingly, claims 51-56 and 63---69
fall with claim 50 over 3GPP and Brusilovsky.
IV. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 50-75 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