Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

11921424 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111921,424 11130/2007
24498 7590 08/02/2016
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Junbiao Zhang
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.
PU050134 5712
EXAMINER
DAVIS, ZACHARY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/02/2016 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri@technicolor.com
russell. smith@technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUNBIAO ZHANG, KUMAR RAMASWAMY, and
JEFFREY ALLEN COOPER
Appeal2014-006269
Application 11/921,424
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, KAMRAN JIV ANI, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-13, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for enabling an access device to access content,
including
audio/video programs, from a content provider comprising:
Appeal2014-006269
Application 11/921,424
receiving a certificate associated with a particular content
provider;
authenticating the certificate and determining a public key
associated with the particular content provider;
generating a first session key for communicating with the
particular content provider as a function of a unique identifier
associated with the access device;
encrypting the first session key using the public key
determined from the certificate and transmitting the encrypted
first session key to the particular content provider;
requesting content from the particular content provider;
decrypting content received from the particular content
provider using the first session key; and
generating a second session key, as a function of the first
session key, which is to replace the first session key after a
predetermined time period, encrypting the second session key
using the first session key, and transmitting the encrypted second
session key to the particular content provider, and upon
receiving an acceptance notification from the particular content
provider with respect to the second session key, using the second
session key to decrypt subsequent content received from the
particular content provider.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Coleman
Chen
us 5,717,756
us 5, 784,463
Feb. 10, 1998
July 21, 1998
HowPGP WORKS, available at http://www.pgpi.org/doc/pgpintro (last
visited July 22, 2016), (hereinafter "PGP").
Bruce Schneier, APPLIED CRYPTOGRAPHY, SECOND EDITION, PROTOCOLS,
ALGORITHMS, AND SOURCE CODE IN c, pp. 176-83, John Wiley and Sons,
Inc. (1996), (hereinafter "Schneier").
2
Appeal2014-006269
Application 11/921,424
REJECTIONS
Claim 4 was rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. 1
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-13, and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen, PGP, Coleman, and Schneier.
ANALYSIS
REJECTION UNDER 35 U.S.C. § 112
The Examiner finds ambiguity in the recitation of "the transmitted
encrypted session key" in claim 4 because claim 4 recites "the transmitted
first session key" and "transmitting the encrypted other session key."
Further, claim 1 from which claim 4 depends, recites "transmitting the
encrypted second session key."
Appellants argue:
one skilled in the art would readily understand that this term
[the transmitted encrypted session key] may refer to "the
enCf'fpted first session key," "the enCf'fpted second session
key" or another transmitted encrypted session key based on the
iterative/repetitive process, and thus be able to ascertain the
scope of the claim.
App. Br. 7.
We understand Appellants' argument to require the "the transmitted
encrypted session key" recited in claim 4 to refer to "the encrypted first
session key," "the encrypted second session key," or "another transmitted
encrypted session key," in the alternative. See id. We contrast Appellants'
1 Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-13, and 15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph in the Final Action. Final Act. 11. The Advisory Action
indicates the 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-
7, 10-13, and 15 to have been withdrawn responsive to an Amendment filed
on October 7, 2013.
3
Appeal2014-006269
Application 11/921,424
argument with an argument that the claim term encompasses each of these
three session keys.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that "the limitation 'the transmitted
encrypted session key' could potentially refer to multiple different encrypted
session keys, as explicitly acknowledged by Appellant" and as such, "it is
ambiguous as to which of the keys it is intended to refer, and such ambiguity
renders the limitation and claim indefinite." Ans. 3.
Therefore, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claim 4.
REJECTIONUNDER35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds the combination of Chen, PGP, Coleman, and
Schneier teach or suggest each limitation recited in claim 1. Final Act. 14--
16. In particular, the Examiner finds Schneier teaches the disputed
limitation and specifically, finds Schneier teaches "key updating where a
second key is generated as a function of a first key after a predetermined
time period ... where the second key is encrypted and transmitted and, upon
acceptance of the second key, is used for decrypting subsequent
communications." Id. at 16 (citing Schneier, pp. 176-77, 180).
Appellants argue "Schneier is referring to a system in which the new,
updated key does not need to be exchanged" because "each party operates
on a key using the same one-way function to derive the same subsequent
keys, which need not be exchanged between each other." App. Br. 11. The
cited portion of Schneier on page 180 states
[s]ometimes it's a pain to distribute a new key every day. An
easier solution is to generate new key from the old key; this is
sometimes called key updating. All it takes is a one-way
function. If Alice and Bob share the same key and they both
4
Appeal2014-006269
Application 11/921,424
operate on it using the same one-way function, they will get the
same result. Then they can take the bits they need from the
results to create the new key.
Schneier, p. 180, § 8.6 (emphases added). Thus, key updating is described
in the above-quoted portion of Schneier as an alternative to distributing
keys. Id. For this reason, and because Alice and Bob are able to
independently generate the new key using the same one-way function, we
are persuaded Schneier does not teach or suggest encrypting or transmitting
the independently-generated, new key. See App. Br. 11.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the applied combination of references teaches or suggests
"encrypting the second session key using the first session key, and
transmitting the encrypted second session key to the particular content
provider," as recited in claim 1 and the commensurate limitation recited in
claim 11. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-
13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chen, PGP,
Coleman, and Schneier.
DECISION
The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejection of claim 4 is affirmed.
The 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--7, 10-13, and 15 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).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
5