Ex Parte Barau et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2016

13378709 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/378,709 12/16/2011 Emmanuel Barau
69713 7590 10/04/2016
OCCHIUTI & ROHLICEK LLP
321 Summer St.
Boston, MA 02210
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.
3Cl05-004US1 7016
EXAMINER
LIPMAN, JACOB
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2016 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):
INFO@ORPATENT.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte EMMANUEL BARAU, OLIVIER GRANET, and
PATRICK SOQUET
Appeal2014-009691
Application 13/378,709
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the rejection of claims 10-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 134(a). 1 Appeal Brief 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 An oral hearing was held on September 29, 2016.
Appeal2014-009691
Application 13/378,709
Introduction
"The invention is directed to the problem of distinguishing between an
attack on a security processor and the normal operation of the processor."
Appeal Brief 4.
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
10. A method for detecting, by a security processor, an attempt
to attack said security processor, said method comprising
measuring events occurring independently of each other in
absence of attack attempts; obtaining at least one index of
concomitance between at least two measurements by
multiplying said measurements by one another, said at least
one index of concomitance representing a temporal proximity
between at least two different measured events, building a value
of at least one attack indicator as a function of at least said at
least one index of concomitance between at least two different
measured events, and detecting an attack attempt if said value
of said at least one attack indicator crosses a predetermined
threshold.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 10-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (b) or 35 U.S.C.
§ 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph as being indefinite. Final Rejection 3.
Claims 10-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Force (U.S. Patent Number 5,533, 123; issued July 2,
1996) and Chesla (U.S. Patent Publication Application Number
2004/0250124 Al; December 9, 2004). Final Rejection 4-5.
2
Appeal2014-009691
Application 13/378,709
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed October 10, 2013), the Appeal Brief
(filed April 9, 2014), the Answer (mailed May 6, 2014), and the Reply Brief
(filed July 7, 2014) for the respective details. We have considered in this
decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
Indefiniteness Rejection
Appellants contend:
[C]laim [10] is clear because one can easily have a first period of
time with no attack attempts, followed by a second period in
which there is an attack attempt. The step of "measuring events
occurring independently of each other in absence of attack
attempts" would simply occur in the first period and not the
second. It is unclear why this is regarded as unclear.
Appeal Brief 22.
The Examiner finds independent claims 10, 17, and 18 each recite
'"in absence of attack attempts' but later states that an attack attempt is
detected" and that "[i]t is unclear how an attack attempt can be detected
when there is an absence of such an attempt." Final Rejection 2.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. We reverse the
Examiner's indefiniteness rejection.
Obviousness Rejection
Appellants contend, the "invention improves upon the prior art by
defining a function index(N1, N2). The result of this function is called the
'index of concomitancy.' If index(N1, N2) > thr for some threshold thr, then
3
Appeal2014-009691
Application 13/378,709
an attack is deemed to have occurred." Appeal Brief 5. Appellants further
contend independent claim 10 is allowable because the combination of Force
and Chesla does not teach or suggest anything that resembles an "index of
concomitance between at least two measurements." Appeal Brief 8. The
Examiner finds that Force discloses combining the measurements as claimed
but does not specifically mention using multiplication as the means for
combining the measurements2. Final Rejection 3. The Examiner further
finds Chesla addresses Force's deficiency by disclosing a method of
protection by detecting the traffic and multiplying the measurements to
determine if the traffic exceeds a threshold. Final Rejection 3 (citing Chesla
paragraph 0318). The Examiner concludes, "It would have been obvious for
one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the multiplication method of
Chesla as the combination method of Force for the motivation of more
accurate detection and generating a lower level of false positives." Final
Rejection 3-4.
Appellants argue the Examiner has not identified which of Force's
operational factors actually teaches the "index of concomitance between at
least two measurements" or anything equivalent to such an index. Appeal
Brief 8. Appellants further argue that Chesla fails to address Force's
deficiency because Chesla merely describes multiplying a measurement of
2 Force discloses operational factors that are static and intrinsically related to
the type of application, the architecture of the Secured Processing Unit
(SPU) chip, etc.: "(ii) the present state of the SPU; (iii) the present stage or
mode of the application; (iv) the potential harm a given attack may
represent; or (v) combinations of factors or detectors, for example, coming
from a given set, occurring in a particular order, or occurring within a fixed
time frame." Force, column 24, lines 27--44.
4
Appeal2014-009691
Application 13/378,709
traffic by j3i, however, j3i is not a measurement but simply an independent
value. Appeal Brief 13 (citing Chesla, paragraph 318). The claim requires
"multiplying said measurements by one another." This is not the same as
"multiplying a measurement by a constant." Appeal Brief 13. We find
Appellants' arguments persuasive because the Examiner finds Force
discloses a list of operational functions but fails to explain which operational
factor, the "index of concomitance between at least two measurements"
claim 10 limitation reads upon. Further, it is not evident from Chesla's
disclosure that j3i is a measurement because the value of j3i appears to
depend upon the type of protocol employed and not a value that is
determined or measured as required by claim 10. Therefore, we reverse the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claims 10, 17, and 18
commensurate in scope, as well as, dependent claims 11-16.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claims 10-18.
We reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 10-18.
REVERSED
5