FORD GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 10, 2021

2020003941 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2021)

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.
15/690,435 08/30/2017 Xin YE 83831702 8939
28395 7590 08/10/2021
BROOKS KUSHMAN P.C./FGTL
1000 TOWN CENTER
22ND FLOOR
SOUTHFIELD, MI 48075-1238
EXAMINER
KABIR, JAHANGIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2021 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):
docketing@brookskushman.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte XIN YE, JASON MICHAEL MILLER, and PIYUSH I. PATEL
____________

Appeal 2020-003941
Application 15/690,435
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KARL D. EASTHOM, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–19, which constitute all of the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Ford
Global Technologies, LLC. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2020-003941
Application 15/690,435

2
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention relates to “secure distribution of
cryptographic keys to in-vehicle on-board electronics control units (ECUs)
during vehicle assembly.” Spec. ¶ 1.2
Claim 1, reproduced below (with formatting added for clarity), is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a gateway including a hardware security module (HSM)
implementing a hardware random number generator and a non-
transitory memory maintaining a key injection status table
(KIST), programmed to
distribute keys generated using the random number
generator to a plurality of electronic control units (ECUs)
responsive to a trigger to begin key distribution received from an
end-of-line (EOL) tool, each key being distributed to one of the
plurality of ECUs in a message specifying the respective key and
an index of a key slot of the one of the plurality of ECUs to
receive the respective key, and
send the KIST to the EOL tool responsive to completion
of the key distribution, the KIST indicating which keys were
distributed to which key slots of the plurality of ECUs.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Name Reference Date
Iwamura US 2006/0115085 A1 June 1, 2006

2 We refer to the Specification filed Aug. 30, 2017 (“Spec.”); Final Office
Action mailed July 22, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief filed Jan. 21, 2020
(“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed Mar. 4, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the
Reply Brief filed May 4, 2020 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-003941
Application 15/690,435

3
Name Reference Date
Stumpf et al. (“Stumpf”) US 2016/0344705 A1 Nov. 24, 2016
Cho et al. (“Cho”) US 2017/0338961 A1 Nov. 23, 2017
Leiseboer et al.
(“Leiseboer”)
US 2018/0052902 A1 Feb. 22, 2018
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Cho, Stumpf, and Iwamura. Final Act. 3.
Claims 17–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Cho, Stumpf, Iwamura, and Leiseboer. Final Act. 14.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “each key being distributed to one of the plurality of
ECUs in a message specifying the respective key and an index of a key slot
of the one of the plurality of ECUs to receive the respective key” and “the
KIST indicating which keys were distributed to which key slots of the
plurality of ECUs.”
The Examiner finds that Iwamura teaches the gateway ECU creating
and distributing keys to each of the ECUs. Final Act. 5 (citing Iwamura
¶ 78). The Examiner further finds that each ECU which correctly receives a
key “then transmits a confirmation signal to the gateway ECU,” which is
then used by the gateway ECU to generate “a key confirmation list
indicating each of the ECUs from which a confirmation signal has been
correctly received.” Id. (citing Iwamura ¶ 78). The Examiner maps those
teachings “to one of the plurality of ECUs in a message specifying the
respective key and an index of a key slot of the one of the plurality of ECUs
to receive the respective key” as recited in claim 1. Id. (citing Iwamura
Appeal 2020-003941
Application 15/690,435

4
¶ 78); see also Ans. 5 (citing Iwamura ¶ 112). Specifically, the Examiner
finds that “Iwamura’s ‘notification list indicating each of the ECUs’”
teaches “an index of a key slot” as claimed, and that “Iwamura’s ‘key is
stored in memory’” teaches a “key slot” as claimed. Ans. 6. The Examiner
also relies on Iwamura’s gateway ECU generating “a key confirmation list
indicating each of the ECUs from which a configuration signal has been
correctly received” to teach the “KIST indicating which keys were
distributed to which key slots of the plurality of ECUs.” Final Act. 5–6
(citing Iwamura ¶ 78); see also Ans. 5.
Appellant argues that “Iwamura generally relates to using cipher keys
to encode communications,” but is silent as to “each key being distributed to
one of the plurality of ECUs in a message specifying the respective key and
an index of a key slot of the one of the plurality of ECUs to receive the
respective key.” Appeal Br. 6. Appellant also argues that Iwamura “simply
indicates that the gateway generates ‘a key confirmation list indicating each
of the ECUs 20 from which a confirmation signal has been correctly
received,’ without any indication of ‘which keys were distributed to which
key slots of the plurality of ECUs.’” Id. Specifically, Appellant argues that
“Iwamura simply indicates which ECUs were sent keys, not into which slots
of the ECUs the keys were placed.” Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
erred. As cited by the Examiner, Iwamura teaches that “a common cipher
key that has been newly generated by the gateway ECU 10 is encrypted and
distributed concurrently to all of the ECUs 20 . . . in the broadcast
communication mode.” Iwamura ¶ 78. Then, “[e]ach ECU 20 that correctly
receives the encrypted common cipher key then transmits a confirmation
Appeal 2020-003941
Application 15/690,435

5
signal to the gateway ECU 10, which has been encrypted by using the newly
acquired common cipher key.” Id. Then, the “gateway ECU 10 thereby
generates a key confirmation list indicating each of the ECUs 20 from which
a confirmation signal has been correctly received.” Id. This “encrypted key
confirmation list is then dispatched to each of the ECUs 20.” Id. Iwamura’s
encrypted common cipher key, distributed to the ECUs in a broadcast
message, teaches distributing the key in a message that specifies both the
key and the target ECU. Iwamura’s key confirmation list, indicating each
ECU that correctly received the encrypted common cipher key, teaches a
listing that indicates the key that was distributed to which ECUs.
Appellant does not persuasively explain why Iwamura’s broadcasting
keys to ECUs fails to teach or otherwise suggest the claimed keys distributed
in messages “specifying the respective key and an index of a key slot of the
one of the plurality of ECUs to receive the respective key.” Appellant also
does not persuasively explain why Iwamura’s confirming which ECUs
receive the keys fails to teach or otherwise suggest the claimed “indicating
which keys were distributed to which key slots of the plurality of ECUs.”
Appellant’s Specification discloses an example that includes “proof-
check[ing] whether keys are injected to all desired key slots at all desired
ECUs.” Spec. ¶ 28. However, the Specification does not provide any
limiting definition regarding the relationship between key slots and ECUs.
Therefore, the claimed “key slot of the one of the plurality of ECUs to
receive the respective key” and the “key slots of the plurality of ECUs” to
which “key were distributed,” in light of the Specification, does not preclude
Iwamura’s ECUs receiving the keys.
Appeal 2020-003941
Application 15/690,435

6
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, along with the rejections of independent claims 7 and 13, and
dependent claims 2–6, 8–12, and 14–19. See Appeal Br. 7–8.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims 1–19.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–16 103 Cho, Stumpf,
Iwamura
1–16
17–19 103 Cho, Stumpf,
Iwamura,
Leiseboer
17–19
Overall
Outcome
1–19

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED