Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 22, 2020

15085869 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 22, 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.
15/085,869 03/30/2016 Josh Powers 15-063 6243
63023 7590 09/22/2020
Schweitzer Engineering Laboratories, Inc.
Law Department
2350 NE HOPKINS COURT
PULLMAN, WA 99163-5603
EXAMINER
LE, THANH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/22/2020 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):
IPMail@selinc.com
Rick_Edge@selinc.com
rosemary_fitzgerald@selinc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte JOSH POWERS, TRISTAN LLOYD MULLIS,
JASON A. DEARIEN, MICHAEL DYLAN CONE, COBY SOSS,
and BARRY JAKOB GRUSSLING1
_____________

Appeal 2019-003106
Application 15/085,869
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, DEBORAH KATZ, and JOHN A. EVANS,
Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of Claims 1–6, 10–17, and 21–26. Appeal Br. 2.
We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicants” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). The Appeal Brief identifies Schweitzer Engineering
Laboratories, Inc., as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-003106
Application 15/085,869

2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to systems and methods for establishing trust
relationships between a software defined network (SDN) controller and a
SDN communication device. See Abstract. Claims 1 and 11 are
independent. Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A software defined network (SDN) controller, the SDN
controller comprising:
a communications interface configured to communicate
with a plurality of SDN network devices;
a memory;
a processor operatively coupled to the memory, wherein
the processor is configured to execute instructions stored on the
memory to cause the processor to:
detect a new device associated with the SDN based
on receipt of an initial certificate indicating that the
new device is in a factory configured state;
receive a user approval to commission the new
device;
establish a first SDN controller trusted credential;
transmit a first device trusted credential based on
the first SDN controller credential to the new
device;
issue programming instructions to the new device
authenticated using the first SDN controller trusted
credential; and
remove the initial certificate from the new device
upon receiving the user approval to commission
the new device onto the SDN to require a factory
Appeal 2019-003106
Application 15/085,869

3

reset to recommission the new device to a different
SDN controller.

PRIOR ART
Name2 Reference Date
Krywaniuk US 2007/0217344 A1 Sep. 20, 2007
Giniger US 8,520,670 B1 Aug. 27, 2013
Ramatchandirane US 2017/0026187 A1 Jan. 26, 20173
Vidyapoornachary US 9,760,504 B2 Sep. 12, 20174

REJECTIONS5 AT ISSUE6
1. Claims 1–5, 10–15, and 21–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as
obvious over Ramatchandirane, Krywaniuk, and Vidyapoornachary.
Final Act. 3–8.
2. Claims 6, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious
over Ramatchandirane, Krywaniuk, Vidyapoornachary, and Giniger.
Final Act. 8–10.

2 All citations herein to the references are by reference to the first named
inventor/author only.
3 Filed September 11, 2015.
4 Filed September 29, 2015.
5 The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being
examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Final Act 2.
6 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”) filed
November 19, 2018, the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed March 7, 2019, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed June 11, 2018, the Examiner’s
Answer mailed January 24, 2019, and the Specification (“Spec.”) filed
March 30, 2016.
Appeal 2019-003106
Application 15/085,869

4

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of Claims 1–6, 10–17, and 21–26 in
light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Appellant’s
arguments have persuaded us the Examiner erred.

CLAIMS 1–5, 10–15, AND 21–26: OBVIOUSNESS OVER RAMATCHANDIRANE,
KRYWANIUK, AND VIDYAPOORNACHARY.
User approval to commission the new device onto the SDN
to require a factory reset.
Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “remove the initial certificate from the new
device upon receiving the user approval to commission the new device onto
the SDN to require a factory reset to recommission the new device to a
different SDN controller.” Independent Claim 11 contains commensurate
recitations.
The Examiner finds: “Ramatchandirane and Krywaniuk do not
explicitly disclose the initial certificate indicating that the new device is in a
factory configured state and removing the initial certificate from the new
device to require a factory reset to commission the new device to a different
SDN controller.” Final Act. 5. The Examiner finds, however, this teaching
is known in the art and cites Vidyapoornachary’s teaching as an example:
The key stored on the memory device may initially be set to a
factory reset state such as, for example, all zero. The memory
controller may be configured to use the factory reset state key
until new key generation is initiated. In some embodiments, the
memory controller may be configured to reset the key to its
Appeal 2019-003106
Application 15/085,869

5

factory reset state. This may allow the memory device to be
transferred to another system.
Id. (quoting Vidyapoornachary, col. 2, ll. 48–54).
Appellant contends “Ramatchandirane is directed to authenticating a
device without user intervention using a unique client identifier, a server
security certificate, and a manufacturer security certificate.” Appeal Br. 6
(citing Ramatchandirane, FIG. 7, ¶ 2). Appellant further acknowledges the
Examiner relies on Vidyapoornachary to teach removing the initial
certificate from the new device upon such user approval to require a factory
reset to recommission the new device to a different SDN controller. Appeal
Br. 7.
Appellant contends “[t]here does not appear to be any further
explanation of resetting the key to the factory reset state other than that it
may occur.” Id. Appellant argues that to generate a new key,
Vidyapoornachary discloses:
A timer may be configured to trigger the periodic generation of
a new key. The timer may be initiated in several ways. In
some embodiments, the memory device may be configured to
automatically start the timer after access to the nonvolatile
memory is unlocked. In some embodiments, the memory
controller is configured to send a key update enable command
to the memory device to initiate the timer after unlocking access
to the memory.
Appeal Br. 7 (quoting Vidyapoornachary, col. 3, ll. 4–16). Appellant argues
none of these references appear to teach removing the initial certificate from
the new device upon receiving the user approval to commission the new
device onto the SDN to require a factory reset to recommission the new
device to a different SDN controller, as claimed. Id.
Appeal 2019-003106
Application 15/085,869

6

The Examiner’s Answer repeats the Final Action findings. See Ans.
4–5.
We agree with Appellant that Vidyapoornachary fails to teach
removing the initial certificate from the new device upon receiving the user
approval to commission the new device onto the SDN to require a factory
reset to recommission the new device to a different SDN controller, as
claimed. Vidyapoornachary teaches removing the certificate in response to a
timer, but not in response to a user approval. The Examiner finds
Krywaniuk user approval to provision a device. Ans. 4 (quoting Krywaniuk,
¶ 58) (“after the connection has been established, the administrator can
verify, either manually or automatically, the unique identifier of the
managed device.”). We disagree, the cited portion of Krywaniuk discloses
an administrator may verify the device identifier, but is silent regarding he
administrator approving the removal of the certificate.
CLAIMS 6, 16, AND 17: OBVIOUSNESS OVER RAMATCHANDIRANE,
KRYWANIUK, VIDYAPOORNACHARY, AND GINIGER.
Appellant does not separately argue Claims 6, 16, or 17, but asserts
their patentability as dependent from either independent Claim 1 or 11.
Appeal Br. 16.
The Examiner stands by the findings for independent Claims 1 and 11.
Ans. 9.
In view of the foregoing, we decline to sustain the rejection of Claims
6, 16, or 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Ramatchandirane, Krywaniuk,
Vidyapoornachary, and Giniger.

Appeal 2019-003106
Application 15/085,869

7

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1–5, 10–15,
21–26
103 Ramatchandirane,
Krywaniuk,
Vidyapoornachary
1–5, 10–15,
21–26
6, 16, 17 Ramatchandirane
Krywaniuk,
Vidyapoornachary
Giniger
6, 16, 17
Overall 1–6, 10–17,
21–26

REVERSED