Nicira, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2020001137 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 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.
14/815,950 07/31/2015 Kiran Kumar Thota N162.07.C1 (B839.07.C1) 7665
109858 7590 07/27/2021
ADELI LLP
P.O. Box 516
Pacific Palisades, CA 90272
EXAMINER
ALMAMUN, ABDULLAH
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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):
ipadmin@vmware.com
mail@adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KIRAN KUMAR THOTA, AZEEM FEROZ, and JAMES
CHRISTOPHER WIESE
Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,9501
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appeal No. 2019-005596 (Application No. 14/320,581) appears to be
related to this appeal, as both appeals are directed to substantially similar
inventions.
2 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real parties in interest as VMware, Inc.,
and Nicira, Inc. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,950

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an encryption method for encrypting data
messages sent by guest virtual machines (“GVMs”). Spec. ¶ 5. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A non-transitory machine readable medium for storing a
program for updating a keyring with a plurality of keys, the
keyring stored on a host computing device that executes a
plurality of virtual machines (VMs) and used for encryption
operations for data messages associated with at least one
particular VM, the program for execution by at least one
processing unit, the program comprising sets of instructions for:
receiving a command from a controller to (1) fetch a new
key for the keyring and (2) remove a particular key from the
plurality of keys in the keyring;
based on the received command, sending a request for the
new key to a key generator;
continuing to process data messages received for the
particular VM by using any of a first plurality of keys in the
keyring including the particular key, while processing data
messages transmitted by the particular VM using any of a second
plurality of keys in the keyring excluding the particular key; and
removing the particular key from the keyring after
receiving the new key so that the particular key is no longer used
to process data messages for the particular VM.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Yared US 2003/0149781 A1 Aug. 7, 2003
Boubion US 2008/0170689 A1 July 17, 2008
Lin US 8,340,300 B2 Dec. 25, 2012
Allen US 8,584,216 B1 Nov. 12, 2013
Harjula US 2015/0242594 A1 Aug. 27, 2015

Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,950

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 7, 12–15, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Allen, Lin, and Harjula.
Claims 4–6, 8, 16–17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Allen, Lin, Harjula, and Boubion.
Claims 9–11 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Allen, Lin, Harjula, and Yared.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We agree with
the Examiner and highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1, 12, and 14
The Examiner found Allen discloses, inter alia, “receiving a
command from a controller to (1) fetch a new key for the keyring and (2)
remove a particular key from the plurality of keys in the keyring,” and
“based on the received command, sending a request for the new key to a key
generator,” as recited in independent clam 1 and similarly recited in
independent claim 12. See Final Act. 9 (citing Allen 6:40–42, 10:40–53,
11:7–25, Fig. 3); see also Ans. 7–9 (citing Allen 5:7–20, 5:52–57, Figs. 1,
2). More specifically, as found by the Examiner, Allen discloses a request-
processing module 104 that, as part of a server 206 illustrated in Figure 2,
receives a request from client device 202(1) for its subscribed cryptographic
key material including cryptographic keys. See Allen 6:40–48; Figs. 2, 3.
Allen further discloses that a subscription-management module 106, as part
of server 206, identifies that the cryptographic key material 212(1) currently
possessed by client device 202(1) does not match the cryptographic key
Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,950

4
material to which client device 202(1) is subscribed. See id. at 7:52–57,
9:4–15, Figs. 2, 3. As also disclosed in Allen, an update module 108
deploys an update to client device 202(1) that causes client device 202(1) to
update cryptographic key material 212(1) to match the set of cryptographic
key material to which client device 202(1) is subscribed. See id. at 10:30–
39, Figs. 2, 3. Allen further discloses a systems-management module 110
that creates a new set of cryptographic keys. See id. at 11:7–25, Fig. 2.
Appellant contends that none of the interactions described in Allen
and cited by the Examiner teach the claimed “command from a controller to
(1) fetch a new key for the keyring and (2) remove a particular key from the
plurality of keys in the keyring” because none of the cited interactions teach
a command from a controller to fetch a new key for a keyring and to remove
a particular key from multiple keys in the keyring. See Appeal Br. 10–13;
see also Reply Br. 3–4, 10–12. Appellant further contends the cited
interactions are also incompatible with each other as each has a different pair
of controller and actor receiving the command. See Appeal Br. 13–14.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Instead, we agree
with the Examiner’s findings that Allen’s request for a cryptographic key
received from client device 202(1) is a command to request-processing
module 104 to update the cryptographic key stored at client device 202(1),
where the request specifically commands request-processing module 104 to
fetch a new cryptographic key from server 206 and replace an old
cryptographic key at client device 202(1) with the new cryptographic key.
See Ans. 7. Appellant’s argument that Allen does not teach that the
command is received from a controller is not persuasive because we agree
with the Examiner that neither Appellant’s claims, nor Appellant’s
Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,950

5
Specification, defines “controller” in a way that distinguishes “controller”
from Allen’s client device 202(1). See Ans. 8. Thus, the Examiner did not
err in finding that Allen teaches or suggests the aforementioned element
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12.
Appellant additionally contends none of the cited interactions
described in Allen teach “based on the received command, sending a request
for the new key to a key generator,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly
recited in claim 12. See Appeal Br. 14–16; see also Reply Br. 4–5. We are
not persuaded by this argument either. Rather, we agree with the Examiner
that, based on the request received by request-processing module 104,
subscription-management module 106 sends a request for a new
cryptographic key to systems-management module 110 in order to update
the cryptographic key stored at client device 202(1). See Ans. 9. Because
the request by subscription-management module 106 to update the
cryptographic key stored at client device 202(1) is based on the initial
request sent by client device 202(1) and received by request-processing
module 104, the Examiner also did not err in finding that Allen teaches or
suggests the aforementioned element recited in claim 1 and similarly recited
in claim 12.
Appellant further contends Allen fails to disclose any combination of
the client device, key managing server, and administrator (or any other
elements disclosed in Allen) that teaches “the three-part pattern of the
controller that sends the command to fetch a new key, the actor that receives
the command and send a request for the new key to a key generator, and the
key generator that receives said request.” See Appeal Br. 16–18; see also
Reply Br. 5–6. This argument is not persuasive either. We agree with the
Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,950

6
Examiner’s finding that the client device 202(1) teaches the claimed
“controller”; the request-processing module 104 teaches the claimed entity
that “[receives] a command from a controller to (1) fetch a new key for the
keyring and (2) remove a particular key from the plurality of keys in the
keyring”; the subscription-management module 106 teaches the claimed
entity that “[sends] a request for the new key to a key generator”; and the
systems-management module 110 teaches the claimed “key generator.” See
Ans. 7–9. Contrary to Appellant’s argument, the claims do not require that
the same entity receives the command from the controller and sends the
request for the new key to the key generator.
The Examiner further found the combination of Lin and Harjula
discloses, “continuing to process data messages received for the particular
VM by using any of a first plurality of keys in the keyring including the
particular key, while processing data messages transmitted by the particular
VM using any of a second plurality of keys in the keyring excluding the
particular key,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12. See
Final Act. 10 (citing Lin 3:16–59, 4:59–7:11, Fig. 2; Harjula ¶¶ 54, 62); see
also Ans. 11–12 (citing Harjula ¶¶ 54, 62). More specifically, as found by
the Examiner, Lin discloses a method for implementing a new authentication
key in a network device having an old authentication key. See Lin 4:47–52;
Fig. 2. Lin discloses that during a specific time period, outgoing packets are
sent using the new authentication key and incoming packets are
authenticated using both the old authentication key and the new
authentication key. See id. at 5:7–12, Fig. 2. As also found by the
Examiner, Harjula discloses managing keys for virtual machines including
Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,950

7
generating a new key in order to rotate keys for the virtual machines. See
Harjula ¶¶ 25, 54, 62, 216, 221.
The Examiner additionally found Lin discloses “wherein the first
plurality of keys includes the particular key and the second plurality of keys
excludes the particular key in order to rotate out the particular key and rotate
in the new key when the new key is received, wherein after receiving the
new key both the first and second pluralities of keys are the same,” as recited
in claim 14. See Final Act. 15 (citing Lin 4:64–7:15; Fig. 2). More
specifically, as previously described, Lin discloses rotating out an old
authentication key while rotating in a new authentication key in a network
device. See Lin 4:47–5:12; Fig. 2.
Appellant contends Lin’s old and new cryptographic key do not teach
or suggest “a first plurality of keys in the keyring including the particular
key,” and “a second plurality of keys in the keyring excluding the particular
key,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 12, and “wherein
the first plurality of keys includes the particular key and the second plurality
of keys excludes the particular key,” as recited in claim 14, because a single
key is not a plurality of keys. See Appeal Br. 18–20, 25–26; see also Reply
Br. 6–7, 9–10. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument. Rather, we
agree with the Examiner’s finding that Lin teaches outgoing packets are
authenticated using a new authentication key and incoming packets are
authenticated using both an old authentication key and a new authentication
key. See Lin 5:7–12. Appellant’s argument that Lin discloses using a single
authentication key rather than a plurality of authentication keys is not
persuasive because Allen and Harjula disclose using a plurality of
authentication keys in place of a single authentication key. See Allen 6:46–
Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,950

8
47 (“[t]he term ‘cryptographic key material,’ as used herein, may include
cryptographic keys”); see also Harjula ¶ 26 (“a key pair comprising a public
key and a private key”). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1,
12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claims 4, 6, and 17
The Examiner found Boubion discloses “wherein the command is
received when the particular key has been used to encrypt a particular
number of data messages,” as recited in claim 4, and further discloses
“wherein the controller generates the command based on statistics that the
controller collects from the host computing device regarding data that the
particular key was used to encrypt,” as recited in claim 6 and similarly
recited in claim 17. See Final Act. 16–17 (citing Boubion ¶¶ 54, 78, 82); see
also Ans. 12–14. More specifically, as found by the Examiner, Boubion
discloses rotating one or more keys generated by a user during a
communication session, where rotation of the keys occurs at predetermined
times or at predetermined events, such as after a predetermined amount of
data is transmitted during a communication event. See Boubion ¶¶ 78, 82.
Appellant contends Boubion does not teach the aforementioned
element of claim 4 because, although Boubion discloses rotating keys based
on triggers and events, Boubion is silent regarding receiving a command
from a controller when a key has been used to encrypt a particular number of
data messages, as a number of data messages encrypted is distinct from an
amount of data transmitted. See Appeal Br. 21–22; see also Reply Br. 7–8.
Appellant further contends Boubion also does not teach the aforementioned
elements of claims 6 and 17 because, although Boubion discloses rotating
keys at an encryptor after a predetermined amount of data is transmitted,
Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,950

9
Boubion is silent regarding collecting statistics at a claimed controller from a
virtual machine host and generating a command to fetch a new key for a
keyring and remove a particular key from multiple keys in the keyring at the
virtual machine host. See Appeal Br. 22–23; see also Reply Br. 8. These
arguments are not persuasive. As Boubion generally discloses rotating keys
based on predetermined events, such as a particular number of data
messages, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a
predetermined event may be a particular number of data messages encrypted
by the key. See Boubion ¶¶ 78, 82. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 4, 6, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as well.
Claims 8 and 19
The Examiner found the combination of Harjula and Boubion
discloses “wherein the program further comprises a set of instructions for
receiving the new key from the key generator in response to the sent request,
wherein the controller monitors usage of keys on the host computing
device,” as recited in claim 8 and similarly recited in claim 19. See Final
Act. 17 (citing Harjula ¶¶ 26, 216, 221; Boubion ¶ 78). More specifically, as
found by the Examiner, Harjula discloses the rotation of keys includes
generating a new key and installing a new key where the old key resided.
See Harjula ¶ 221. Boubion further discloses rotating one or more keys after
a predetermined amount of data is transmitted during a communication
event. See Boubion ¶ 82.
Appellant contends the combination of Harjula and Boubion fail to
teach the aforementioned elements of claims 8 and 19 because, although
Boubion discloses rotating keys based on data monitoring, Boubion fails to
disclose that the monitoring is done by a controller from which the claimed
Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,950

10
command is received to fetch a new encryption key. See Appeal Br. 24; see
also Reply Br. 9. We are not persuaded by this argument. As previously
described, Allen discloses the interactions with the claimed “controller” and
the claimed “command” to fetch a new encryption key. Further, as Boubion
discloses monitoring amount of data transmitted during a communication
session in order to determine when to rotate keys used during the
communication session, Boubion also teaches monitoring the keys used to
transmit the data during the communication session. See Boubion ¶¶ 78, 82.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of claims 8 and 19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 also.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20
No separate arguments are presented for claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9–11, 13,
15, 16, 18, and 20. See generally Appeal Br. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 2, 3, 5, 7, 9–11, 13, 15, 16, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2020-001137
Application 14/815,950

11
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 7, 12–
15, 18
103 Allen, Lin, Harjula 1–3, 7, 12–
15, 18

4–6, 8, 16–
17, 19
103 Allen, Lin,
Harjula, Boubion
4–6, 8, 16–
17, 19

9–11, 20 103 Allen, Lin,
Harjula, Yared
9–11, 20
Overall
Outcome
1–20

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