Ex Parte Michiels et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2018

14313402 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/313,402 06/24/2014
65913 7590 07/03/2018
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Wil Michiels
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.
81635993US01 5348
EXAMINER
WOLDEMARIAM, NEGA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07 /03/2018 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):
ip.department.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WIL MICHIELS, and JAN HOOGERBRUGGE 1
Appeal 2017-011417
Application 14/313 ,402
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--49, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. 1-2. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 The Appeal Brief does not list the real party in interest, our review of
Appellants' Application (filed June 24, 2014) indicates the assignee and real
party in interest is NXP, B.V. See Application 4.
2 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed June 24, 2014; Appeal
Brief ("App. Br.") filed May 30, 2017; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed
Sept. 13, 2017. We also refer to the Examiner's Final Office Action (Final
Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed Dec. 30, 2016, and Answer ("Ans.") mailed
Aug. 7, 2017.
Appeal 2017-011417
Application 14/313,402
We affirm.
Appellants 'Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns machine-readable storage
media and methods for implementing a white-box cryptographic system to
perform cryptographic operations. The cryptographic system receives an
identifying string and an input message, and performs a keyed cryptographic
operation, which maps the input message into an output message that
conveys the identifying string value matches one of a set of binding string
values (i.e., a correct result). Spec. i-fi-12, 8-56; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with key disputed limitations
emphasized, further illustrates the invention:
1. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium
encoded with instructions for execution by a white-box
cryptographic implementation in a cryptographic system for
performing a cryptographic operation, the non-transitory
machine-readable storage medium comprising:
instructions for receiving, by the cryptographic system, an
identifying string value;
instructions for receiving, by the cryptographic system, an
input message;
instructions for peiforming, by the cryptographic system,
a keyed cryptographic operation mapping the input message into
an output message wherein the output message is the correct
result when the identifying string value is any one of a set of
binding string values, wherein the set includes a plurality of
binding string values, wherein the presence of only one of any of
the binding string values results in a correct output message.
2
Appeal 2017-011417
Application 14/313,402
Rejections on Appeal3
1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 7-11, 13-21, 23-27, 29-37,
39-43, and 45--49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 4 as being unpatentable over
Farrugia et al. (US 2014/0101458 Al, published Apr. 10, 2014) ("Farrugia")
and Futa et al. (US 2009/022 8717 A 1, published Sept. 10, 2009) ("Futa").
2. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 12, 22, 28, 38, and 44 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Farrugia, Futa, and Johnson et
al. (US 2006/0140401 Al, published June 29, 2006) ("Johnson").
3 The Examiner notes in the Final Action that there is a pending provisional
double patenting rejection, and that Appellants previously indicated they
would "address the provisional double patenting rejection at the time when
the claims are in condition for allowance." Final Act. 2. The Examiner
initially made the provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection of
claims 1--49 in a Non-Final Office Action, dated Nov. 2, 2015 (the "OA")
over claims 1-39 of co-pending application US 14/263,429. See OA 3-5.
Appellants stated, in an Amendment filed Jan. 26, 2016 (the "Amend."), the
provisional non-statutory double patenting rejection "will not be addressed
until claims are indicated as otherwise allowable." Amend. 17. Appellants
do not further address the pending provisional non-statutory double
patenting rejection in either their Appeal Brief or Reply Brief. We note,
additionally, that Application 14/263,429 has issued as US Patent 9,485,226
Nov. 1, 2016 so that the rejection is no longer provisional because the
assignee allowed the application to issue. Accordingly, we proforma affirm
the Examiner's (provisional) non-statutory double patenting rejection of
claims 1--4 9.
4 The application on appeal has an effective filing date of June 24, 2014, and
has no parent applications. Therefore, the Leahy-Smith America Invents
Act (AIA) amendments to the U.S. Code(§§ 102, 103) are applicable. See
MPEP § 2159.02: "AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 apply to any patent
application that ... has an effective filing date that is on or after March 16,
2013."
3
Appeal 2017-011417
Application 14/313,402
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, Appellants' contentions, and the
Examiner's findings and conclusions, the issue before us is as follows:
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination Farrugia and
Futa would have collectively taught or suggested "a keyed cryptographic
operation mapping the input message into an output message ... when the
identifying string value is any one of a set of binding string values" within
the meaning of Appellants' claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of
claims 17, 33, and 49?
ANALYSIS
The 35 US.C. § 103 Rejection of Claim 1
Appellants argue independent claims 1, 17, 33, and 49, and dependent
claims 2-16, 18-32, and 34--48, together as a group with respect to the § 103
rejections. See App. Br. 9. We select independent claim 1 as representative
of Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1--49. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as being obvious in view of
Farrugia and Futa. See Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 10-11. The Examiner cites
Farrugia as teaching white box cryptography (see i-fi-124, 73; Fig. 2);
receiving input data (an identifying string value) (see i124; Fig. 2); look up
tables containing data for white-box cryptography (see i-f 12), which the
Examiner finds to be binding string values; and calculating a hash of the
input and table data (i-fi-167----69; Fig. 4). See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 10-11
(citing Farrugia i-fi-f 12, 24, 67-69, 73; Figs 2 and 4). The Examiner also cites
Futa as teaching matching one of a set of binding string values with an
4
Appeal 2017-011417
Application 14/313,402
identifying string value-specifically, the Examiner finds Futa describes
generating a table for each bijective mapping and matching the bijective
mapping table data to a program data table. See Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 11
(citing Futa i-fi-1472, 474). Appellants contend that Farrugia and Futa do not
teach the disputed limitation of claim 1. See App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2--4.
Specifically, Appellants contend Futa does not teach matching an
"identifying string value" to "any one of any of a set of binding string
values." App. Br. 5; see App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2--4.
We disagree with Appellants that Farrugia and Futa do not teach a
matching an identifying string value to one binding string value in a set of
(valid) binding string values. The Examiner provides an explanation of the
Farrugia and Futa references and how Farrugia and Futa teach or suggest the
disputed features of Appellants' claim 1. We adopt as our own: ( 1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-5), and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 10-11) in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and we address specific findings, conclusions, and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
We agree with the Examiner's findings that Farrugia describes the
disputed features of Appellants' claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner finds
Farrugia describes receiving input data, which the Examiner broadly but
reasonably construes as Appellants' recited identifying string value (see
Farrugia i124; Fig. 2). See Final Act. 4; Ans. 10-11. The Examiner further
finds Farrugia describes tables of data (lookup tables), which the Examiner
broadly but reasonably construes as Appellants' recited binding string values
5
Appeal 2017-011417
Application 14/313,402
(see Farrugia i-f 12). See Ans. 10-11. The Examiner also finds Farrugia
describes or at least suggests comparing the input data to the look up tables
during white box cryptographic operations (see Farrugia i-fi-1 12, 24, 73; Fig.
2). See Ans. 10-11. Additionally, the Examiner found Farrugia describes a
hash of integrity information being corrupted by tampering-i.e., a
comparison to determine a correct result using integrity information, a hash
of the integrity, and lookup table data (see Farrugia i-fi-1 67----69). See Final
Act. 4. The Examiner's supplements the findings made with respect to
Farrugia with findings that Futa describes matching one of a set of values
(one binding string value of a set of binding string values) with a desired
value (identifying string value}-Futa describes comparing data (a table
included in a program) with bijective mapping table data (a set of many
values) and evaluating if the values match, producing a correct result. See
Final Act. 4--5; Ans. 11 (citing Futa i-fi-1472, 474).
Appellants do not address the Examiners findings with respect to
Farrugia. See App. Br. 5-9; Reply Br. 2--4. Accordingly, we agree with the
Examiner that Appellants attack the references individually and do not
address the combination of references. See Ans. 11. The references cited by
the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what each fairly teaches
in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references).
Further, Appellants misconstrue the Examiner's rejection. The
relevant feature of Futa is whether Futa at least suggests value comparisons
in a context of white box cryptography and matching a value with one of a
6
Appeal 2017-011417
Application 14/313,402
set of values. We agree with the Examiner, supra, that Futa at least suggests
this feature. We also find, supra, Farrugia at least suggests comparing the
input data to lookup table data. Thus, we find the combination Farrugia and
Futa at least suggests the disputed feature of matching an "identifying string
value [to] any one of a set of binding string values," such that an "output
message is the correct result" (claim 1 ).
Thus, Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of representative claim 1,
independent claims 17, 33, and 49 that include limitations of commensurate
scope, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-16, 18-21, 23-27, 29-32, 34--
37, 39-43, and 45--48, not separately argued with particularity (supra).
The 35 US. C. § 103 Rejection of Claims 6, 12, 22, 28, 38, and 44
Appellants do not separately argue dependent claims 6, 12, 22, 28, 38,
and 44, or the obviousness rejection of the claims over Farrugia, Futa, and
Johnson. See App. Br. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 6, 12, 22, 28, 38, and 44 for the same
reasons as claim 1 (supra).
CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1--49.
7
Appeal 2017-011417
Application 14/313,402
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