Ex Parte Alrabady et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2016

12192870 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/192,870 08/15/2008
70422 7590 08/02/2016
LKGlobal (GM)
7010 E. COCHISE ROAD
SCOTTSDALE, AZ 85253
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ANSAF I. ALRABADY
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.
P003192-NAPD-TJM
003.0491
CONFIRMATION NO.
3628
EXAMINER
KORSAK, OLEG
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):
docketing@lkglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANS AF I. ALRABADY and THOMAS M. P.
CATSBURG
Appeal2014-009237
Application 12/192,870
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, SHARON PENICK, and JOHN R.KENNY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. (App. Br. 8.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The claims are directed to a system and method for performing an
asymmetric key exchange between a vehicle and a remote device. (Spec. 1.)
Claim 17, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
Appeal2014-009237
Application 12/192,870
1 7. A method comprising:
electronically receiving a first digital certificate from a
certificate authority by a second remote device, the first digital
certificate comprising a first public key that corresponds to a
first private key that is stored on the certificate authority; and
electronically receiving a second public key, a digital
signature of the second public key, and a second digital
certificate from the vehicle, wherein:
the second public key corresponds to a second private
key stored on a memory device in the vehicle;
the digital signature of the second public key is generated
by a first remote device using a third private key; and
the second digital certificate being previously generated
by the certificate authority and includes a third public key and a
digital signature of the third public key, wherein the third public
key corresponds to the third private key and the digital
signature of the third public key is generated by the certificate
authority using the first private key.
REJECTION
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Raya and Hubaux, Securing vehicular ad hoc networks, Journal Computer
Security 15 (2007) 39-68 ("Raya").
2
Appeal2014-009237
Application 12/192,870
ANALYSIS
Most of Appellants' arguments concern claim 1 7, so we address the
claims in the following order: claim 17 and the claims argued with it ( 18
and 19), claims 1-16, and claim 20.
Claims 17-19
Appellants argue that Ray does not describe three limitations recited
in independent claim 17. (App. Br. 10-16.) First, Appellants argue that
Rays fails to describe "electronically receiving a first digital certificate from
a certificate authority by a remote device" because Raya preloads data/keys
and certificates or loads them during maintenance periods. (Id. at 10-11.)
We are not persuaded by this argument and adopt the Examiner's findings
and reasoning regarding this disputed limitation and add the following for
emphasis. (Ans. 15-18.) As the Examiner correctly explains, the disputed
limitation does not preclude the "receiving" being preloading. (Ans. 15-16,
Claim Appendix.) As the Examiner further sets forth, in Raya, a processor
receives the digital certificate, which means it electronically receives the
certificate. (Id. at 15-18; Raya 50-51.)
Second, Appellants argue that Raya fails to describe "electronically
receiving a second public key, a digital signature of a second public key, and
a second digital certificate from the vehicle." 1 According to Appellants, the
Examiner fails to (a) identify a second public key that is distinct from the
first public key and (b) set forth that the vehicle transmits a digital signature
and digital certificate and public key. (App. Br. 12-14.) We are not
persuaded by either argument and adopt the Examiner's findings and
1 In the event of further prosecution, we note the term "the vehicle" in claim
17 lacks an antecedent basis.
3
Appeal2014-009237
Application 12/192,870
reasoning regarding this limitation. (Ans. 18-19.) We add the following for
emphasis. As the Examiner correctly finds, Raya describes that its vehicle
has more than one digital certificate. (Ans. 19, Raya 55.) Raya teaches "a
vehicle will have to store a large key and certificate set." (Ans. 19, Raya
55.) When the vehicle transmits a certificate, other than the first certificate
loaded (e.g., a replacement digital certificate), the transmitted certificate is a
second certificate, which is different from the first certificate the vehicle
receives. (Id.) Further, as the Examiner correctly finds, Raya discloses
attaching a digital signature and a certificate to every safety message. (Id.,
citing Raya 55.) Therefore, when the vehicle transmits the recited second
certificate, the vehicle transmits the recited second digital signature, second
digital certificate, and second public key. (Ans. 19.) Appellants have not set
forth any persuasive evidence or arguments demonstrating error in these
findings by the Examiner. (Reply Br. 5---6.)
Appellants argue that Raya fails to disclose a third public key that (i)
corresponds to a first private key stored at a certificate authority, (ii)
corresponds to a third private key, and (iii) has a digital signature that is
generated using the first private key stored on the certificate authority.
(App. Br. 14--15.) Appellants argue that Raya, in fact, discloses only two
public keys: the vehicle's and the certificate authority's. (App. Br. 14.) We
are not persuaded by this argument and adopt the Examiner's findings and
reasoning regarding this limitation. (Ans. 19-20.) We add the following for
emphasis. The Examiner finds that the third-public-key limitation is
satisfied in Raya when the vehicle travels between regional authorities. (Id.)
The certificate authority of the second authority verifies the vehicle using the
public key of the certificate authority that registered the vehicle. (Id.) The
public key provided by the second authority thus would correspond to the
4
Appeal2014-009237
Application 12/192,870
third public key. Its private key would be the third private key. The digital
signature for the third public key is generated using the private key of the
first certificate authority (first private key): the second certificate authority
verifies the vehicle with the first certificate authority using the public key of
the first certificate authority, which means the first certificate authority used
its private key. Appellants do not set forth any persuasive arguments or
evidence demonstrating any error in the Examiner's finding. (Reply. Br. 4--
6.)
Appellants also argue that Raya operates in a manner contrary to the
claimed subject matter. (App. Br. 9-10.) We are not persuaded by that
argument and adopt the Examiner's response to those arguments. (Ans. 14--
15.)
Appellants raise additional arguments regarding claim 17 on pages
five and six of the Reply Brief. We will not consider those arguments
because Appellants present no good cause for waiting until the Reply to
raise them. 37 C.F.R. § 41.4l(b)(2) (2013).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 17 and of claims 18
and 19, not separately argued. (App. Br. 18.)
Claims 1-16
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-16 by
ignoring differences between those claims and claim 17. (App. Br. 19.) In
their Appeal Brief, Appellants specifically address one limitation for which
the Examiner purportedly made this error. (Id.) Therefore, we will consider
that limitation.
The disputed limitation relates to transmitting descriptive data from a
vehicle to a trusted for storage at a location that is accessible to the first
remote device as recited in claim 1. (Id.) The Examiner sets forth how
5
Appeal2014-009237
Application 12/192,870
Raya's use of an event data recorder (EDR) satisfies this limitation. (Ans.
21-22.) Appellants do not set forth any persuasive evidence or arguments
challenging the Examiner's findings regarding the EDR and this limitation.
(Ans. 21-22; Reply Br. 2-3.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and we adopt the Examiner's findings
and reasoning for the disputed limitation. (Ans. 21-22.)
In their Reply Brief, Appellants argue that Raya fails to satisfy
additional limitations in claim 1. (Reply Br. 2-3.) We will not consider
these arguments because Appellants present no basis for waiting until the
Reply to raise these issues. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2013).
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-16.
Claim 20
Appellants argue that Raya fails to disclose third and fourth public
and private keys as recited in claim 20. (App. Br. 19.) The Examiner sets
forth how Raya discloses third and fourth public and private keys. (Ans. 19-
20, 22, c1tmg Raya 53.) Appellants have not set any persuasive arguments
or evidence demonstrating error in the Examiner's finding. (Reply Br. 6.)
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument, and we sustain
the rejection of claim 20.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
6
Appeal2014-009237
Application 12/192,870
AFFIRMED
7