Ex Parte so

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2015

12651047 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/651,047 12/31/2009
25537 7590 12/21/2015
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ning So
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.
20090494 8393
EXAMINER
DEBNATH, SUMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/21/2015 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
u-NITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NING SO
Appeal2013-009867
Application 12/651,047
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant 1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Verizon Communications Inc. and
its subsidiary companies. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2013-009867
Application 12/651,047
Claimed Subject Matter
The invention generally relates to a method and system for providing
traffic hashing and network level security. (Title.) Claims 1 and 11,
reproduced below, are illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
rece1vmg, at a routing node, a unit of transmission
associated with a flow of network traffic;
encrypting the unit of transmission;
determining a pseudo-address to assign to the encrypted
unit of transmission; and
assigning the pseudo-address to the post-encrypted unit
of transmission.
11. A method comprising:
receiving, from a routing node, an encrypted unit of
transmission at least specifying a pseudo-address and an
address associated with the routing node;
hashing the pseudo-address and the address associated
with the routing node to obtain a hash value; and
initiating transmission of the encrypted unit of
transmission based on the hash value.
Rejections
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by
Trostle (US 2009/0228708 Al, published Sept. 10, 2009). (Final Act. 2-5
(mailed Nov. 7, 2012).)
Claims 11-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Trostle and Jeffries (US 7,140,041 B2, issued Nov. 21, 2006). (Final
Act. 6-10.)
2
Appeal2013-009867
Application 12/651,047
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments the Examiner erred (App. Br. 4--12; Reply Br. 2-5). We are not
persuaded by Appellant's contentions as to claims 1-10. For these claims,
we adopt as our own the findings and reasons relating to these claims set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, the
Answer (see Ans. 5-7), and the Advisory Action (mailed Dec. 31, 2012).
As to claims 11-20, we agree with Appellant the Examiner has not
shown the combination of Trostle and Jeffries teaches initiating transmission
based on the hash value, as recited in claim 11.
We highlight and address specific arguments and findings for
emphasis as follows.
Claims 1-10
Appellant argues Trostle does not disclose assigning the pseudo-
address to the post-encrypted unit of transmission, as recited in claim 1.
(App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 2-3.) Appellant argues claim 1 requires the
pseudo-address to be assigned after the encryption, and that "a fair reading
of paragraph [0075] of Trostle suggests that the translation device 634
concurrently provides a pseudo-random address and the encryption" (App.
Br. 6). Appellant further contends Figure 5 of Trostle shows different
portions of a data structure, including an encrypted code portion and a
pseudo-randomly generated value, but does not suggest a time sequence to
these portions. (App. Br. 7-8.)
We agree with the Examiner's finding (see Final Act. 3; Ans. 5-7)
that Figures 4--7 and paragraphs 58-86 of Trostle disclose assigning the
3
Appeal2013-009867
Application 12/651,047
- -- - - - ,.,_ - -- -
pseudo-address to the post-encrypted unit of transmission."" Paragraph 58 of
Trostle discloses that "OT A data packet 500 is a data structure comprising a
string of bits, wherein the data structure is arranged into portions including a
global prefix identifier 402, an encrypted code portion 502 and a pseudo-
randomly generated value portion 504." Accordingly, and as shown also in
Figure 5 of Trostle, the encrypted data and the pseudo-randomly generated
value are two separate items. (See Final Act. 3 ("see, figure 5, wherein item
502 is encrypted data and item 504 is a pseudo-randomly generated value
which is distinct address for every packet").) We further agree with the
Examiner that a "person with ordinary skill in the art would recognize that
encrypting a transmission data and attaching a pseudo -address to the same
encrypted transmission data cannot occur concurrently as suggested by
applicant in the argument" (Ans. 6). As a result, whether (1) the pseudo-
address is stored in the data structure first and the encrypted data item is
added, or (2) the encrypted data item is stored in the data structure first and
the pseudo-address is added, in either case assigning the pseudo-address to
the encrypted unit of transmission occurs after encryption. Claim 1 does not
preclude an additional step of assigning the pseudo-address to the
unencrypted unit of transmission prior to assigning it to the encrypted unit of
transmission.
2 We agree with the Examiner (see Ans. 3--4) that claims 1 and 6 are unclear
because the difference, if any, between "the encrypted unit of transmission"
and "the post-encrypted unit of transmission" recited in the claims is
unclear. Currently, however, there is no rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, and we do not reach the claim objections (see Final Act.
2). For purposes of this appeal, we interpret "the post-encrypted unit of
transmission" to mean "the encrypted unit of transmission."
4
Appeal2013-009867
Application 12/651,047
Paragraph 7 5 of Trostle is not inconsistent with the Examiner's
finding that encrypting transmission data and attaching a pseudo -address to
the same encrypted transmission data cannot occur concurrently. Paragraph
7 5 describes a translation device that "encrypts the packets such that they
have a pseudo-random source address and an encrypted plaintext address of
mix router 640 of network 612 as the destination address in a manner as
discussed above with respect to FIG. 5 (S710)." Only the plaintext address
is described as being "encrypted" after the encryption step. Replacing the
unencrypted plaintext address with the encrypted plaintext address
associates the pseudo-address with the encrypted plaintext address, even if
an association previously existed between the unencrypted plaintext address
and the pseudo-address.
In light of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Trostle. For the same reasons, we sustain
the rejection of independent claim 6 and dependent claims 2-5 and 7-10,
which are not argued separately by Appellant (see App. Br. 5-8).
Claims 11-20
Appellant argues neither Trostle nor Jeffries teaches or suggests a
hash function for hashing a pseudo-address and the address associated with a
routing node, "much less then initiating transmission of an encrypted unit of
transmission 'based' on a hash value obtained by using the hash function"
(App. Br. 10). We agree with the Examiner (see Final Act. 6-7) that Figure
9 and column 9, lines 46-65, of Jeffries teach performing a hash on the
destination address of a received packet. We agree with Appellant,
however, that the Examiner has not shown Jeffries's hash value is used in
5
Appeal2013-009867
Application 12/651,047
transmission of the packet. Jeffries teaches using the hash value to detect
dissemination of malicious programs. (Jeffries, Abstract.) We note the
Examiner also has not found that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized a benefit in modifying Trostle and Jeffries to initiate
transmission based on the hash value. 3 In light of the foregoing, we do not
sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Trostle and Jeffries. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of independent claim 16, which recites a similar limitation, or the
rejection of dependent claims 12-15 and 17-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-10 is affirmed. The
Examiner's decision to reject claims 11-20 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
JRG
3 Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) 1213.02.
6