Ex Parte Szrek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 28, 2017

12726053 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 28, 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.
12/726,053 03/17/2010 Walter Szrek 28030-19 1468
76656 7590
Patent Docket Department
Armstrong Teasdale LLP
7700 Forsyth Boulevard
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
05/02/2017 EXAMINER
HUANG, TSAN-YU J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2017 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):
USpatents @ armstrongteasdale. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WALTER SZREK and IRENA SZREK
Appeal 2015-000406
Application 12/726,0531
Technology Center 3600
Before: JOSEPH A. FISCHETTI, PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISCHETTI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1 and 3—212. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Walter Szrek and Irene Szrek as the real party in
interest. Br. 1.
2 According to Appellants, claim 2 has been cancelled. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-000406
Application 12/726,053
THE INVENTION
Appellants claim a system and methods that provide identity
protection for random numbers in an electronic game. Spec. | 14.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
1. A method for protecting random numbers, the method
comprising:
generating, a remote client, transformation information;
encrypting, by the remote client, the transformation
information using an asymmetric algorithm and a public key of a
random number generation server;
sending, by the remote client, the encrypted transformation
information from the game server;
receiving, at random number generation server, encrypted
transformation information from the game server;
decrypting, by the random number generation server the
encrypted transformation information;
generating random numbers by the random number
generation server;
transforming, by the random number server, random
numbers according to the transformation information;
sending the transformed random numbers to the game server;
securing, via the game server, the transformed random
numbers;
sending the transformed random numbers from the game
server to the remote client, wherein the remote client transforms the
transformed random numbers to recreate the generated random
numbers.
THE REJECTION
The following rejection is before us for review.
2
Appeal 2015-000406
Application 12/726,053
1. Claims 1 and 3—21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Schneier et al., US 2008/0064494 Al, pub. Mar. 13,
2008 (hereinafter “Schneier”), Phillips et al. US 2008/0090660 Al,
pub. Apr. 17, 2008 (hereinafter “Phillips”), and Ginter et al., US
2002/0112171 Al, pub. Aug. 15, 2002 (hereinafter “Ginter”). Final 4.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings as set forth on pages 2—7 of the
Answer.
2. Schneier discloses, “[g]ame server random number database 395
stores all game server random numbers received from game server 200.
This database may also store the corresponding decoding keys in the event
that a game server random number is encoded.” Schneider | 57.
ANALYSIS
The Appellants argued claims 1 and 3—21 as a group. Appeal Br. 10.
Independent claim 1, the sole independent claim before us, is the
representative claim for this group, and the remaining claims stand or fall
with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
Appellants argue,
while paragraph [0074] of Phillips describes a
system wherein a random number server is
separate from a game server, paragraph [0074] also
describes that the game server obtains random
number[s] required for the game from the random
3
Appeal 2015-000406
Application 12/726,053
number server. Thus, in contrast [to] the Claim 1,
the game server described in Phillips has access to
the random numbers generated by the random
number server, and thus the game server described
in Phillips has knowledge of the actual random
numbers, unlike the game server recited in Claim
1.
Appeal Br. 9—10.
We disagree with Appellants. The problem with Appellants’ position
is that the claim does not require that the transformation at the random
number server make the data which is sent to game server inaccessible by
the game server. Appellants’ Specification does not specifically define the
term “transform” in this way, nor does it utilize the term contrary to its
customary meaning. The ordinary and customary definition of the term
“transform” is: “to change in character or condition.”3 Schneier discloses
that the game server random number database 395 possesses corresponding
decoding keys in the event that a game server random number is encoded.
FF. 2. We agree with the Examiner that one having ordinary skill in the art
would understand to use some type of transformation algorithm in the data
sent between the random generated server and a game server for the reasons
given by the Examiner on page 9 of the Answer.
Notwithstanding the above discussion, since Schneier discloses that
the game server random number may be encoded (FF. 2), we find that this
3 https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionarv/transform (last visited
4/10/2017)
4
Appeal 2015-000406
Application 12/726,053
meets the definition of “transform” because encoding changes the condition
of its readability absent access to the decoding algorithm. That the game
server in Schneier may have the encoding keys to the coded random
numbers is not of consequence because as found supra, the claims do not
require that the transformation at the random number server make the data
which is sent to game server inaccessible by the game server—the claims
only require that the data is transformed in some way which is met by the
encoding of the random numbers.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 3—21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3—21 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5