Ex Parte Annicchiarico et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2017

12266470 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2017)

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.
12/266,470 11/06/2008 Richard F. Annicchiarico CAM920080085U S1 (226) 4141
46321 7590
CRGO LAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, EL 33434
EXAMINER
LESNIEWSKI, VICTOR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2017 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@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD F. ANNICCHIARICO, DAVID S. KERN,
and ROBERT J. PAGANETTI
Appeal 2016-005843
Application 12/266,470
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This application returns to us after we affirmed the Examiner’s
decision to reject then-pending claims 1—17. See Ex parte Annicchiarico,
No. 2012-003916 (PTAB July 23, 2014), reh g denied (PTAB Oct. 1, 2014).
Prosecution reopened after that decision, and Appellants now appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s subsequent rejection of claims 1—
17. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 7—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter. Final Act. 3.
Claim 1—17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over
Frisch (US 2008/0159543 Al; Jul. 3, 2008) and Goodman (US
2008/0065882 Al; Mar. 13, 2008). Final Act. 4~11.
Appeal 2016-005843
Application 12/266,470
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “seal management for encrypted
data.” Spec. 11. Claims 1 and 7 are illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method for extensible seal management for encrypted data,
the method comprising:
loading by program code of a seal management module executing in
memory of a computer, a seal list of multiple different seal hints of different
seal hint formats for different seals, each of the seal hints containing a hint
as to which key was used previously to encrypt a corresponding one of the
different seals;
selecting by the program code from amongst the multiple different
seal hints, a seal hint of a seal hint format that is recognizable by the
program code of the seal management module;
filtering the seals in the seal list by the program code of the seal
management module according to the selected seal hint to a subset of the
seals corresponding to seal hints that are recognized by the program code of
the seal management program code;
attempting decryption of the filtered seals with a decryption key
specified by the selected seal hint to decrypt one of the filtered seals in order
to reveal a bulk key; and,
decrypting the encrypted data with the bulk key.
7. A data processing system configured for extensible seal
management for encrypted data, the system comprising:
2
Appeal 2016-005843
Application 12/266,470
an extensible seal management module coupled to data decryption
logic for a data processing application executing in a host computing
platform, the module comprising program code enabled to:
load by the program code of the module, a seal list of multiple
different seal hints of different seal hint formats for different seals, each of
the seal hints containing a hint as to which key was used previously to
encrypt a corresponding one of the different seals,
select from amongst the multiple different seal hints, a seal hint of a
seal hint format that is recognizable by the program code of the seal
management module,
filter the seals in the seal list according to the selected seal hint to a
subset of the seals corresponding to seal hints that are recognized by the
program code of the seal management module, and,
attempt decryption of the filtered seals with a decryption key specified
by the selected seal hint to decrypt one of the filtered seals in order to reveal
a bulk key for use by the data decryption logic in decrypting the encrypted
data.
ANALYSIS
The 35 U.S.C. § 101 Rejection of Claims 7-11
The Examiner rejects claims 7—11 as directed to non-statutory subject
matter. Final Act. 3. In particular, the Examiner concludes claims 7—11 are
directed to software per se. Final Act. 3.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
[Cjlaim 7 recites not only an “extensible seal management
module” but also “data decryption logic”, a “data processing
application” and a “host computing platform” in which the data
3
Appeal 2016-005843
Application 12/266,470
processing application executes.” The module is defined to
include program code that is enabled to perform a number of
steps several of which interoperate with the data decryption
logic.
App. Br. 7—8; see also App. Br. 8—9 (Examiner’s conclusory statements are
not supported) and Reply Br. 2-4.
In response, the Examiner explains “under broadest reasonable
interpretation, the claimed ‘extensible seal management module’ is nothing
more than program code, or software per se.” Ans. 3. The Examiner further
explains:
The appellant argues that claim 7 also recites the use of “data
decryption logic”, a “data processing application”, and a “host
computing platform”. First, it is noted that none of these elements
are positively recited in the claim as being part of the claimed
system, or as performing any function within the system. Second,
even if these elements were positively recited, each of these three
elements is reasonably interpreted as software in and of itself.
The Office does not interpret the terms “logic”, “application”, or
“platform” as necessarily including any specific hardware. These
terms are interpreted, as they would be by one of ordinary skill
in the art, as software. The examiner could not find any
indication in the appellant’s specification that these terms
represent anything more than software, nor that they are
necessarily limited to inclusion of some hardware.
Ans. 3^4.
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that claims 7—11 are
directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 7 positively recites “an extensible seal management module
coupled to data decryption logic.” We consider both the “extensible seal
management module” and the “data decryption logic” as being positively
recited.
Appellants’ Specification (| 23) discloses
4
Appeal 2016-005843
Application 12/266,470
Embodiments of the invention can take the form of an entirely
hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment or an
embodiment containing both hardware and software elements. In
a preferred embodiment, the invention is implemented in
software, which includes but is not limited to firmware, resident
software, microcode, and the like.
In light of Appellants’ Specification, we conclude that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “an extensible seal management module coupled
to data decryption logic” includes software per se because the “module” and
the “logic” do not require any structure. Further, the “data processing
application” and “host computing platform” are not positively recited;
rather, they are recited as part of an intended use for the “extensible seal
management module” and the “data decryption logic.”
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101
of claims 7—11.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-17 over Frisch and Goodman
The Examiner finds Frisch and Goodman teach all limitations of claim
1. Final Act. 4—6.
Appellants present the following principal argument:
Paragraphs H 33 and 38 of Goodman do not teach a seal hint
containing a hint as to which key was used previously to encrypt a
corresponding one of the different seals. See App. Br. 11—13. “[Paragraph
[0033] of Goodman pertains to key label defined to be an alias, name,
signature, hash, or identifier that is used to identify a particular encryption
key or keys.” App. Br. 12.
Paragraph [0038] of Goodman provides for ‘media encryption
status’ which indicates a key label associated with removable
storage media. Combining Frisch with Goodman, then, a
5
Appeal 2016-005843
Application 12/266,470
teaching is provided of the retrieval of a hint that identifies a
key used to encrypt data—not the claimed hint as to which
key was used previously to encrypt a corresponding one of
the different seals. Thus, the Examiner has omitted
consideration of the essential element of “seal hints containing a
hint as to which key was used previously to encrypt a
corresponding one of the different seals”. Instead, Examiner has
only accounted for a hint that identifies a key used to encrypt
data.
App. Br. 12-13; see also Reply Br. 9—10.
Appellants’ arguments do not show error in the contested finding of
the Examiner. Nor do Appellants’ arguments show error in the legal
conclusion of obviousness of the Examiner.
In reaching our decision, we emphasize that the Examiner’s findings
with respect to Frisch are not contested. The Examiner finds Frisch
discloses:
a seal list (paragraph 36, list 56 of keys associating a public key
for each key identifier) of multiple different seal hints (paragraph
36, list 58 of methods for retrieving the public key) of different
seal hint formats (paragraphs 42-46, each method P has a
different format) for different seals (paragraph 36, keys), each of
the seal hints containing a hint as to how a corresponding one of
the seals was encrypted (paragraph 36, methods for retrieving the
public key)[.]
Final Act. 4 (emphasis added). We adopt this finding as our own.
Regarding the contested finding with respect to Goodman, the
Examiner finds Goodman teaches the recited (emphasis added) “hint as to
which key was used previously to encrypt a corresponding one of the
different seals.” Final Act. 5 (citing Goodman || 33, 38). The Examiner
reasons:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at
the time of the applicant’s invention to modify the system of
6
Appeal 2016-005843
Application 12/266,470
Frisch by adding the ability for the seal hints containing a hint as
to which key was used previously to encrypt a corresponding one
of the different seals as provided by Goodman (see paragraphs
33 and 38, encryption method indicates particular key labels,
where key label is used to identify encryption key). One of
ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the benefit that
utilizing KEKs would provide improved security to data keys
(see Goodman, paragraph 19).
Final Act. 5. We agree with and adopt this finding and these reasons as our
own, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusion.
Put another way, on this record, it is uncontested that Frisch discloses
a hint as to how a seal was encrypted; but, Frisch’s hint does not specifically
hint to an encrypting key. See Final Act. 4—5. Goodman (|| 33, 38) teaches
an identifier to identify an encrypting key — a hint as to an encrypting key.
The Examiner articulates some reasoning, with a rational underpinning, as to
why Goodman’s hint would have been incorporated into Frisch’s system.
See Final Act. 5. We see no error in the Examiner’s reasoning.
Regarding Appellants’ argument, Appellants characterize the prior art
as identifying a key used to encrypt data. See App. Br. 12—13. However, as
explained above, Frisch’s methods are a hint as to how a seal was encrypted;
Goodman’s identifier is a hint to an encrypting key; collectively, the
references teach a hint to an encrypting key for a seal. See Final Act 4—5;
see also Ans. 4—5 and Goodman 133 (emphasis added) (“key labels are all
used to refer to one or more keys that may be used for encrypting and/or
decrypting data or other keys”).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2—17, which are not separately argued with particularity.
7
Appeal 2016-005843
Application 12/266,470
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—17 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
8