Ex Parte Bajko et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 9, 2016

13143080 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/143,080 06/30/2011
12358 7590 11/14/2016
Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gabor Bajko
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. CONFIRMATION NO.
39700-885N01 US/NC670057US 1156
EXAMINER
PYZOCHA, MICHAEL J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/14/2016 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABOR BAJKO, TEEMU ILMARI SA VOLAINEN,
P ASI ISMO ERONEN, and LARS RENE EGGERT
Appeal2015-007158
Application 13/143,080
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KAL YAN K. DESHPANDE, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.
DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 40-60.2 We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellants' Reply Brief ("Reply Br.,"
filed July 28, 2015), and Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed February 13, 2015),
and the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 28, 2015) and Final Office
Action ("Final Act.," mailed July 8, 2014).
2 Claims 1-39 were cancelled previously.
Appeal2015-007158
Application 13/143,080
INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to methods, apparatuses, and
computer program products for facilitating randomized port allocation.
Spec. 1 :2--4.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 40.
40. An apparatus, comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, the
at least one memory and computer program code configured to,
with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to at least:
receive a port allocation message comprising an
encryption key, an initial input value, and a value indicating a
total number of ports allocated to the apparatus for
communication on a network; and
calculate at least one port allocated to the apparatus with
an encryption function based at least in part upon the encryption
key and initial input value.
Takeda et al.
Batifoulier et al.
Anderson et al.
REFERENCES
US 2004/0139228 Al
US 8,327,100 B2
US 8,429, 393 Bl
July 15, 2004
Dec. 4, 2012
Apr. 23, 2013
Henry C. J. Lee & Vrizlynn L. L. Thing, Port Hopping for Resilient
Networks, Institute for Infocomm Research, IEEE (2004). ("Lee").
REJECTIONS
Claims 40, 41, 43--46, 48-54, 56-58, and 60 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 (a) as unpatentable over Lee and Anderson. Final Act. 3-10.
2
Appeal2015-007158
Application 13/143,080
Claims 42, 47, 55, and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Lee, Anderson, Batifoulier, and Takeda. Final Act.
10-14.
ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 40-60
turns on whether Lee teaches (1) receiving both an "encryption key" and an
"initial input value" in a port allocation message; and (2) an apparatus that
calculates "at least one port allocated to the apparatus."
ANALYSIS
Claims 40, 41, 43--46, 48-54, 56--58, and 60 rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as unpatentable over Lee and Anderson
Appellants argue that Lee fails to teach receiving both an "encryption
key" and an "initial input value" in a port allocation message, as recited in
independent claims 40; 45; 52; 53; 54; and 58. Apr. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 6-
7. Appellants argue that Lee teaches a key and time slot number, and that
the Examiner finds that Lee's time slot number meets the claimed initial
input value; however, Appellants "disagree with the Examiner's
characterization of Lee because Lee's client only receives a key from the
server." App. Br. 11-12 (citing Lee 2-3; Final Act. 4); Reply Br. 6-7.
Accordingly, Appellants argue that "there is no indication that the client also
receives a time slot number from the server as asserted by the Examiner."
App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 6-7.
We disagree with Appellants. Claim 40 recites "receiv[ing] a port
allocation message comprising ... an initial input value." Claim 40,
however, does not specify that the message or initial input value is received
3
Appeal2015-007158
Application 13/143,080
from the server. Accordingly, under the broadest reasonable interpretation
in light of the Specification, this limitation encompasses any received
message that includes an initial input value, regardless of its origination.
The Examiner finds that Lee teaches a dynamic port hopping method
to solve fixed port attacks. Ans. 4 (citing Lee 1 ). The Examiner further
finds that Lee teaches receiving a cryptographic key k which corresponds to
the claimed encryption key, and a time slot number i which corresponds to
the claimed initial input value. Id.; Lee 2. The Examiner finds that Lee
teaches "calculat[ing] a random port number Pi by using a [function] based
on the cryptographic key k and the time slot number i." Id.; Lee 2. That is,
the apparatus or client receives the shared secret key and time slot number in
order to calculate the port number. Lee 2. Accordingly, Lee teaches
receiving a message that includes an encryption key and an initial input
value or time slot number, as required under the broadest reasonable
interpretation.
Appellants further argue that Lee fails to teach an apparatus that
calculates "at least one port allocated to the apparatus," as recited in
independent claims 40, 52, and 54, and similarly recited in independent
claims 45, 53, and 58. Apr. Br. 12-14. Reply Br. 7-9. Appellants argue
that Lee teaches an apparatus that calculates ports allocated to the server,
whereas the claims require the ports to be allocated to the apparatus. App.
Br. 13 (citing Lee 2).
We disagree with Appellants. As discussed above, Lee discloses
"calculat[ing] a random port number Pi by using a [function] based on the
cryptographic key k and the time slot number i." Ans. 4; Lee 2. The
Examiner further finds that "Lee discloses 'when a client needs to
4
Appeal2015-007158
Application 13/143,080
communicate with the server, it will determine the server's current port
number Pi using the shared key k and the time slot number i. '" Id. at 6-7
(quoting Lee 2). That is, at least one port is calculated and allocated to the
apparatus or client in order for the client and server to communicate. Lee 2.
Accordingly, Lee teaches calculating "at least one port allocated to the
apparatus."
Claims 42, 47, 55, and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lee, Anderson, Batifoulier, and Takeda
Appellants do not argue claims 42, 47, 55, and 59 separately.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection for the reasons discussed
above.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting 40, 41, 43--46, 48-54, 56-58,
and 60 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lee and Anderson.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 42, 47, 55, and 59 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Anderson, Batifoulier,
and Takeda.
DECISION
To summarize, the rejections of claims 40-60 are 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)(l )(iv).
5
Appeal2015-007158
Application 13/143,080
AFFIRMED
6