Ex Parte Rombouts

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13817641 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
13/817,641 04/29/2013 Peter Maria Franciscus Rombouts 81409544US05 6901
65913 7590
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
POTRATZ, DANIEL B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/01/2017 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):
ip. department .u s @ nxp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETER MARIA FRANCISCUS ROMBOUTS
Appeal 2017-001250
Application 13/817,641
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1—10 and 19—24. See App. Br. 12—17,
Claims Appx. Claims 11—18 stand as withdrawn and claims 25—41 are
canceled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.2
1 The Appeal Brief does not contain a statement of real party. By
implication, we understand the real party to be NXP BV. See App. Br. 11.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed February 16, 2016, “App. Br.”); the Reply
Brief (filed November 1, 2016, “Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer
(mailed October 20, 2016, “Ans.”); the Final Office Action (mailed
November 16, 2015, “Final Act.”); and the Specification (filed February 19,
2013, “Spec.”) for their respective details.
Appeal 2017-001250
Application 13/817,641
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims relate to systems and methods for performing intra-zone
and inter-zone security management in a network. See Spec., Abstract.
INVENTION
Claims 1,19, and 23 are independent. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of Claim 1, which is reproduced
below with some formatting added:
1. An authentication method comprising:
storing a device authentication private key on an
authentication device;
storing a device authentication public key certificate
linked to a trusted authentication root certificate on the
authentication device,
wherein the device authentication private key and
the device authentication public key certificate facilitate
authentication of the authentication device to a verification
device according to a device authentication protocol; and
storing a configuration root certificate on the
authentication device, wherein the configuration root certificate
facilitates authentication of a configuration device to the
authentication device according to a configuration authentication
protocol,
wherein the device authentication protocol and the
configuration authentication protocol use two separate
certificate chains that both originate from a trusted party
as a root of trust.
2
Appeal 2017-001250
Application 13/817,641
References and Rejections
Bellows et al. US 7,929,703 B2
(hereinafter “Bellows”)
Torres et al. US 2009/0245184 Al
(hereinafter “Torres”)
Higgins et al. US 2011/0028091 Al
(hereinafter “Higgins”)
Kuo et al. US 2011/0087882 Al
(hereinafter “Kuo”)
Bender et al. US 2011/0276803 Al
(hereinafter “Bender”)
Filed Dec. 28, 2005
Filed Mar. 27, 2008
Filed Aug. 3, 2009
Filed Oct. 12, 2009
Filed May 10,2010
The claims stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1 and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Kuo. Final Act. 3—5.
2. Claims 2, 3, 6, 7, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kuo and Bellows. Final Act. 6—11.
3. Claims 9, 10, 23, and 24 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Kuo and Higgins. Final Act. 11—12.
4. Claims 4, 5, 21, and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Kuo, Bellows, and Bender. Final Act. 12—
15.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1—10 and 19—24 in light of
Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred.
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
3
Appeal 2017-001250
Application 13/817,641
the Appeal Brief on pages 4—10.
Claims 1 and 19: Anticipation by Kuo
Appellant argues independent Claims 1 and 19 as a group in view of
the limitations of Claim 1. App. Br. 4.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “wherein the device authentication protocol
and the configuration authentication protocol use two separate certificate
chains that both originate from a trusted party as a root of trust.” Appellant
contends Kuo discloses intermediate and server certificates, which rely on a
“chain of signatures.” Id. Appellant argues Kuo fails to disclose separate
certificate chains for the device and configuration authentication protocols.
Id. Appellant contends Kuo only discloses authentication of devices, but not
of protocols. Id. at 5.
The Examiner finds Kuo teaches “the AP also has server certificate
174, signed by root certificate 170a, which allows the AP to authenticate
itself to client devices . . . AP 130m also includes an intermediate CA
certificate for organization A (certificate 172a), which is signed by and is
subordinate to organization CA root certificate 170a.” Ans. 5 (citing
Kuo 145). The Examiner specifically finds “Organization AP (i.e., the
claimed ‘authentication device’) includes an a server certificate 174 and an
intermediate CA certificate 172a that each originate from and chain back to
root certificate 170a stored on the Global Server [Qthe claimed ‘trusted
party.’)” Id. (citation omitted).
Appellant replies claim 1, and similarly claim 19, recite “wherein the
device authentication protocol and the configuration authentication
4
Appeal 2017-001250
Application 13/817,641
protocol use two separate certificate chains that both originate from a
trusted party as a root of trust.” Reply Br. 1.
Appellant discloses “[a]s shown in Fig. 3, the public key architecture
described herein includes two separate certificate chains that both originate
from the trusted party as a root of trust.” Spec. 9,11. 14—15. “The
configuration root certificate [CRC] is the root of trust for the configuration
certificate chain. This certificate is installed on all authentication devices in
order for them to be available to verify the brand owner configuration public
key certificate.” Id. at 9,11. 18—23.
Appellant discloses a second certificate chain: “[t]he second
certificate chain is used to prove the authenticity of the authentication device
and the brand owner and product information stored in the authentication
device.” Id. at 9,11. 31—32. “The authentication root certificate [ARC] is the
root of trust for the authentication certificate chain.” Id. at 10,11. 1—2.
In contrast to the two independently originated certificate chains
disclosed and claimed by Appellant, the Examiner finds Kuo discloses that
“root certificate 170a” is the basis of a first chain leading to server certificate
174 and also is the basis of a second chain leading to certificate 172a, the
intermediate CA certificate for organization A. Ans. 6. Kuo teaches a
common origin for multiple certificate chains, but fails to teach “separate
certificate chains that both originate from a trusted party as a root of trust,”
as claimed.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of
independent Claims 1 and 19.
5
Appeal 2017-001250
Application 13/817,641
Claims 2-10, and 20-24: Obviousness over Kuo and any of Bellows,
Higgins, or Bender
Appellant contends none of Bellows, Higgins, or Bender remedies the
deficiencies of Kuo as discussed above. App. Br. 7—10.
The Examiner does not respond to Appellant’s arguments regarding
the rejections under § 103. See Ans. 3—11.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of the
dependent claims.
DECISION
The rejection of Claims 1 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
REVERSED.
The rejection of Claims 2—10 and 20-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
REVERSED.
REVERSED
6