Sandeep Chennakeshu

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2020

14992805 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2020)

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.
14/992,805 01/11/2016 Sandeep CHENNAKESHU P5230US00 8050
63617 7590 02/28/2020
PERRY + CURRIER INC. (BlackBerry)
1300 YONGE STREET
SUITE 500
TORONTO, ONTARIO M4T-1X3
CANADA
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, NGA X
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3662
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/28/2020 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@pckip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SANDEEP CHENNAKESHU
____________

Appeal 2019-002690
Application 14/992,805
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, CHARLES N. GREENHUT, and
LISA M. GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–19. 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 Blackberry Limited as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002690
Application 14/992,805
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “computing devices in vehicles . . . for
collecting user-based insurance data in vehicles.” Spec. ¶ 1. Claims 1, 10,
and 19 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A device comprising:
a processor;
a memory storing (i) a plurality of driver-associated
encryption keys, and (ii) for each of the plurality of driver-
associated encryption keys, a corresponding driver identifier;
the plurality of driver identifiers corresponding to respective
drivers; and
a communication interface configured to communicate
with a vehicle diagnostic monitor and a remote server, the
processor configured to:
determine a current driver of the vehicle by
receiving data that identifies the current driver;
select, as a current encryption key, one of the
plurality of the driver-associated encryption keys that
corresponds to one of the driver identifiers matching the
data that identifies the current driver;
collect, using the communication interface, vehicle
data from the vehicle diagnostic monitor;
encrypt the vehicle data using the current
encryption key to produce encrypted vehicle data; and,
transmit, using the communication interface, the
encrypted vehicle data to the remote server.

Appeal 2019-002690
Application 14/992,805
3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Davis US 6,038,549 Mar. 14, 2000
McMillan US 6,064,970 May 16, 2000
Phillips US 2016/0086397 A1 Mar. 24, 2016
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. Claims 1–4, 6–8, 10–12, 14–17, and 19 are rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over McMillan and Phillips.
2. Claims 5, 9, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over McMillan, Phillips, and Davis.

OPINION
Rejection I
Appellant argues claims 1–4, 6–8, 10–12, 14–17, and 19 as a group.
We select claim 1 as representative, with claims 2–4, 6–8, 10–12, 14–17,
and 19 standing or falling with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 19, the Examiner finds that
McMillan discloses a processor (i.e., on-board computer 300) and memory
device (i.e., on-board data storage device 402), and also a communication
interface (i.e., input/output subsystem 404) configured to communicate with
a vehicle diagnostic monitor and a remote server (i.e., operation control
center 416), wherein the processor is configured to (i) determine a current
driver of the vehicle by receiving data that identifies the current driver (i.e.,
driver input console 410); and (ii) collect, using the communication
Appeal 2019-002690
Application 14/992,805
4
interface, vehicle data from the vehicle diagnostic monitor. Final Act. 2–3
(citing McMillan, 6:44–7:22, 10:50, Figs. 3, 4).
The Examiner determines that McMillan fails to teach the claim
limitations involving encryption, and relies on Phillips for disclosing the
claim limitations involving “driver-associated encryption keys.” Final Act.
3–4 (citing, at least, Phillips ¶¶ 50, 115, 116, 118–140, 202–207, 230–232,
228–229). The Examiner reasons that it would have been obvious to modify
McMillan to use driver-associated encryption keys, as taught by Phillips,
“for security [of] the driver’s information.” Id. at 4–5 (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner’s assertion that Phillips
discloses driver-associated encryption keys is unsupported by [paragraphs
50 and 118–140 of Phillips, as relied on by the Examiner].” Br. 8.
Appellant submits that “Phillips merely mentions various mechanisms by
which any driver profiles could be encrypted,” but “does not relate any of
the various mechanisms to encrypting driver profiles, and in particular does
not suggest storing separate encryption keys corresponding to different
driver profiles.” Id. at 9 (“[Phillips is] silent on storing encryption keys on a
per-driver basis”). Appellant submits that “Phillips merely discuss[es]
wireless encryption in general terms, and provide[s] no guidance that would
lead the skilled person to implement a wireless security scheme in which
distinct encryption keys are stored for each driver profile 28.” Id.
The Examiner responds by explaining that Phillips is relied on for
enabling “driver-associated encryption keys,” as follows:
[a] computer readable medium 40 for storing a unique driver
profile 28 for the drivers 42, wherein the profile 28 is stored in
an encrypted format (see at least [Phillips ¶¶ 115–116]. . . . The
security and encryptions techniques for secure communications
and secure storage of data in the computer readable medium 40
Appeal 2019-002690
Application 14/992,805
5
includes security and encryption application programs 41 such as
Wireless Encryption Protocol (WEP) which accepts encryption
keys (see at least [Phillips ¶¶ 120, 121]) . . . . Therefore, the
computer readable medium 40 enables to have []“a memory
storing (i) a plurality of driver-associated encryption keys, and
(ii) for each of the plurality of driver-associated encryption keys,
a corresponding driver identifier; the plurality of driver
identifiers corresponding to respective drivers.”
Ans. 4 (emphasis added).
Phillips discloses that
[t]he electronic circuit 36 is configured for automatically creating
the unique driver profile 28 for a driver 42 of the vehicle 24 from
the electronic information 30 . . . received as a result of the driver
42 operating the vehicle 24 and stored in the non-transitory
computer readable medium 40. The non-transitory computer
readable medium 40 connected to the electronic circuit 36 is used
for storing the created unique driver profile 28 and for storing the
electronic information 30 received from the plural electronic
signals . . . received as the result of the driver 42 operating the
vehicle.
Phillips ¶ 50; see also id. at Abstract (“[t]he unique driver profile
information is recorded on the apparatus and/or network device, downloaded
at a later time or sent in real-time to check and verify an identity of a
driver”); ¶ 116 (“unique driver profile 28 . . . is stored in an encrypted
format in the non-transitory computer readable medium”).
Phillips also discloses, as relied on by the Examiner supra, the use of
“one or more of the . . . encryption[] techniques discussed herein for . . .
[the] secure storage of data” (id. ¶ 118), for example, “Wireless Encryption
Protocol (WEP),” which “is cryptographic privacy algorithm, based on the
Rivest Cipher 4 (RC4) encryption engine” (id. ¶ 120), and “RC4,” which
“can accept encryption keys of arbitrary length, and is essentially a pseudo
random number generator with an output of the generator being XORed with
Appeal 2019-002690
Application 14/992,805
6
a data stream to produce encrypted data” (id. ¶ 121) (wherein Phillips
discloses that WEP uses static encryption keys (id. ¶ 122)).
Thus, a preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
finding that Phillips at least discloses the concept of separately storing (or
downloading) encrypted data into a memory, wherein the separately stored
encrypted data corresponds to individual driver identifiers corresponding to
drivers (i.e., unique driver profiles), and further, Phillips at least suggests
using encryption keys associated with stored data files. Thus, contrary to
Appellant’s argument, we determine that Phillips is not silent regarding the
use of encryption keys for indexing (i.e., selecting and adding encrypted
vehicle data to a data file, as claimed), as argued by Appellant, but rather,
provides some guidance for storing encrypted data representative of
separately stored, individual, unique driver profiles relative to encryption
keys capable of use for indexing the profiles. The arguments presented do
not apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Phillips discloses using
encryption keys to store individual driver data files and, in combination with
McMillan, enables indexing individual driver identifiers using
corresponding encryption keys for the selection and matching of driver
profiles with additional vehicle data.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2–4, 6–8, 10–12, 14–17, and 19 fall therewith.

Rejection II
Appellant chose not to present separate arguments for the patentability
of dependent claims 5, 9, 13, and 18. Br. 8–10. Therefore, for essentially
Appeal 2019-002690
Application 14/992,805
7
the same reasons as set forth supra, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 5, 9, 13, and 18.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6–8,
10–12,
14–17, 19
103 McMillan,
Phillips
1–4, 6–8, 10–12,
14–17, 19

5, 9, 13,
18
103 McMillan,
Phillips, Davis
5, 9, 13, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–19
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED