Ex Parte Baek et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 9, 2018

12806861 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2018)

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.
12/806,861 08/20/2010 Young-Kyo Baek SP10093-US
(SAMS06-10093
4245
23990 7590 01/11/2018
DOPKF.T n FR K
EXAMINER
P.O. DRAWER 800889
DAT!.AS, TX 75380
GEORGANDELLIS, ANDREW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2459
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/11/2018 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):
patents @ munckwilson. com
munckwilson @ gmail. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YOUNG-KYO BAEK, JI-CHEOL LEE, and JUNG-JE SON
Appeal 2017-006759
Application 12/806,861
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, BETH Z. SHAW, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16—19, 21, 23—25,
28, 29, 39, 41, 46—53, and 55—60. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, “[t]he real party in interest is Samsung
Electronics Co., LTD.” App. Br. 4.
Appeal 2017-006759
Application 12/806,861
INVENTION
The invention is for a method and an apparatus for reducing an
overhead for integrity check of data in a wireless communication system.
Spec. 12.
Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method for operating a base station in a wireless
communication system, the method comprising:
detecting an integrity check value (ICV) error of a
received message;
determining whether update of a second key used for
encrypting data by a mobile station is required due to the ICV
error; and
performing a key update procedure if the update of the
second key is used for encrypting data by the mobile station is
required,
wherein performing the key update procedure comprises
discarding a first key used for encrypting transmission data,
using the second key as the first key, and deriving a first new
key for decrypting the received data.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 14, 16, 18, 19, 21,
23-25, 29, 39, 41, 47-A9, 51, 53, 56, and 58-60 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Thakare (US 2009/0181643 Al, published
July 16, 2009) and “IEEE Standard for Local and Metropolitan Area
Networks” (hereinafter, “IEEE Std. 802.16”). Final Act. 4—8.
The Examiner has rejected claims 13,28, 50, 52, 55, and 57 under
pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thakare, IEEE Std.
802.16, and Cho (US 2009/0019284 Al, published Jan. 15, 2009). Final
Act. 8—9.
2
Appeal 2017-006759
Application 12/806,861
The Examiner has rejected claim 46 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Thakare, IEEE Std. 802.16, and Yegani
(US 7,962,123 Bl, issued June 14, 2011). Final Act. 10.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the
rejection from which appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer in
response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. See Ans. 3—18; Final Act. 2—10. We
highlight and address specific arguments and findings for emphasis as
follows.
First, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that Thakare fails
to teach “determining whether update of a second key used for encrypting
data by a mobile station is required due to the ICV error.” App. Br. 12—15;
Reply Br. 3—5. Instead, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Thakare
teaches this element. Ans. 3—5.
As the Examiner explains, Thakare shows in Figure 4 that the step of
performing the security breach analysis is performed before the step of
determining the ICV counter exceeds the threshold, and further shows that
there are no intervening steps between determining the ICV counter exceeds
the threshold and generating the new TEK. Id. at 3^4. Thakare teaches that
the counter represents the number of ICV errors that have occurred. Final
Act. 2 (citing Thakare 127). Thakare’s counter is incremented and the
action (i.e., updating first and second TEKs of an 802.16 security
association) is taken because the most recent ICV error caused the counter to
3
Appeal 2017-006759
Application 12/806,861
exceed the threshold. Id. Thus, Thakare teaches “determining whether
update of a second key used for encrypting data by a mobile station is
required due to the ICV error.”
We also agree with the Examiner’s finding that IEEE 802.16 teaches
“discarding a first key used for encrypting transmission data, using the
second key as the first key, and deriving a first new key for decrypting the
received data,” as recited in claim 1. As the Examiner explains, IEEE
802.16 teaches performing a key update procedure by discarding a first key
TEK0, using a second key TEK1 as the new first key, and deriving a new
second key TEK2. Ans. 7 (citing IEEE 802.16, Fig. 166). We are not
persuaded by Appellants’ conclusory statement that IEEE 802.16’s key is
“simply inactive” and therefore is not discarded. Reply Br. 8. In the
absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to the contrary,
the finding that IEEE 802.16 teaches discarding the first key is reasonable,
and we find no reversible error.
With respect to certain dependent claims, Appellants argue various
teachings of the references and combinations of the references are in error.
App. Br. 18—25. However, the Examiner has thoroughly explained how the
teachings of the applied prior art render the claim limitations obvious.
Ans. 9—14.
For example, Appellants argue Thakare fails to teach the limitations
of dependent claim 3, which depends from claim 1, and which recites
“wherein the message comprises one of a control message and a Medium
Access Control (MAC) Protocol Data Unit (MPDU).” App. Br. 18—19. The
Examiner explains how Thakare teaches those limitations. See Ans. 9
(citing Thakare 1 6).
4
Appeal 2017-006759
Application 12/806,861
The Examiner’s findings and explanations are reasonable, based on
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims, and Appellants have not
demonstrated error in the Examiner’s findings. Id.
Although Appellants appear to acknowledge Thakare teaches “various
layers communicate control messages and data over corresponding service
access points” (App. Br. 18—19 (citing Thakare 127)), Appellants also argue
Thakare does not teach “an ICV error of the ‘control message communicated
over various layers’ is checked” (App. Br. 19). Yet, this argument is not
commensurate in scope with dependent claim 3, which does not recite “an
ICV error of the control message communicated over various layers is
checked,” but, instead, merely recites “wherein the message comprises one
of a control message and a Medium Access Control (MAC) Protocol Data
Unit (MPDU).” The Examiner finds that Thakare teaches using an ICV in a
control message to check the integrity of the control message. Ans. 9. In
the absence of sufficient evidence or line of technical reasoning to the
contrary, the Examiner’s response is reasonable, and we find no reversible
error.
Additionally, with respect to certain dependent claims, Appellants
generally allege, without more, that the Examiner relies on improper
hindsight. Reply Br. 9. We are not persuaded by this general allegation.
Any judgment on obviousness is . . . necessarily a
reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning, but so long as it
takes into account only knowledge which was within the level
of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made
and does not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant's
disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper.
5
Appeal 2017-006759
Application 12/806,861
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). See also Radix Corp.
v. Samuels, 13 USPQ2d 1689, 1693 (D.D.C. 1989) (“[A]ny obviousness
inquiry necessarily involves some hindsight.”).
For these reasons and for the additional reasons stated in the Final
Rejection and Answer, we sustain the rejection of claims 1—4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14,
16-19, 21, 23-25, 28, 29, 39, 41, 46-53, and 55-60.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1—4, 6, 8, 9, 13, 14, 16—
19, 21, 23—25, 28, 29, 39, 41, 46—53, and 55—60 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2011).
AFFIRMED
6