Ex Parte Barrus et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 20, 2016

12348451 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/348,451 0110512009
46320 7590 01/22/2016
CRGOLAW
STEVEN M. GREENBERG
7900 Glades Road
SUITE 520
BOCA RATON, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
William G. Barrus
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.
RSW920010224US2 3052
EXAMINER
HOLDER, BRADLEY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01122/2016 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@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WILLIAM G. BARRUS, CARYL. BATES,
ROBERT J. CRENSHAW, and PAUL R. DAY
Appeal2013-000348
Application 12/348,451
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-000348
Application 12/348,451
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 7-16. Claims 1-6 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Exemplary Claim
7. A secure messaging method comprising the steps of:
receiving, by a receiving computing device of an
intended message recipient, an encrypted message from a
computing device of a message source, said message having
been encrypted using an encryption key based on a token
uniquely identifying a pervasive device personally associated
with the message recipient;
obtaining a decryption key formulated based upon the
token, by the receiving computing device, from the pervasive
device through a wireless link established between the receiving
computing device and the peP1asive device; and
decrypting said encrypted message, by the receiving
computing device, using said obtained decryption key.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 7-10 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Terao (US 2001/0034714 Al, Oct. 25, 2001) and
further in view ofDeo (US 6,496,928 Bl, Dec. 17, 2002). Ans. 5-9.
Claims 11and16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Terao, Deo, and Clapper (US 6,948,062 Bl, Sept. 20,
2005). Ans. 9-10.
2
Appeal2013-000348
Application 12/348,451
fNVENTION
The present invention includes receiving an encrypted message, the
message having been encrypted using a token of a corresponding pervasive
device (e.g., a cell phone); wirelessly verifying the presence of the pervasive
device; and, if the presence can be verified, decrypting the message using
the token. The verification step can include the steps of establishing a
wireless link with the pervasive device; and, querying the pervasive device
over the wireless link. See Figs. IA and IB.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. The Examiner explains how
the combination of Terao and Deo teaches the disputed features and rebuts
the Appellants' contentions (App. Br. 9--10) in the Response to Argument
section of the Answer (Ans. 10-15). We have reviewed this response and
concur with the Examiner's findings and conclusions. We adopt as our own
( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner's Final Action and Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. Final Act. 6-11; Ans. 4--15.
As to Appellants' contention in the Reply Brief about the claimed
token (Reply Br. 6-8), Appellants' Specification states:
The pervasive computing device 160A can be any such device
having a personal dimension, including, for example, a data
ready cellular telephone, a personal digital assistant (PDA), a
pager, or an embedded system in a vehicle or article of clothing.
Significantly, the pervasive computing device 160A can have
3
Appeal2013-000348
Application 12/348,451
associated therewith a token 150A. The token 150A can be any
identifier suitable for definitively identifying the pervasive
computing device 160A. One example of a suitable identifier
can include a MAC address or other such hardware serial
number. The token 150A can be forwarded to the conventional
computing device 120A.
Spec. ,-r 20.
Thus, the token recited in Appellants' claims may include the
hardware serial number. This feature is disclosed in Deo, col 23, 11. 35--40,
"serial number of the pager or other mobile device" that is used to identify
the user.
Appellants also contend that in Terao:
Therefore, the playback requesting apparatus 10 is not a pervasive
device personally associated with the message recipient in the sense of
the Appellants' invention. In the Appellants' invention, the
pervasive device is used for authenticating the message recipient
(using the receiving device) only and the receiving device receives the
message from a sending device, not from the pervasive device. In
Terao, the temporary playback apparatus 50 is authenticated using the
digital signature of the temporary playback apparatus 50 (T3, S 11 ),
not a pervasive device associated with the user of the
temporary playback apparatus 50.
App. Br. 9.
The Examiner finds that Terao teaches this feature at "[(parag. [0092],
lines 6-10 and Figs. 4 and 8 from Terao et al.)]; ... [(parag. [0110], lines 1-9
and Figs. 4 and 8 from Terao et al.)]; and ... [(parag. [0105], lines 1-9;
parag. [0110]; and parag. [0113], lines 1-4 from Terao et al.)]." Final Rej. 6-
7. We adopt the Examiner's findings and underlying reasoning, which are
incorporated herein by reference.
4
Appeal2013-000348
Application 12/348,451
We find the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner's ultimate
legal conclusion of obviousness, and, therefore, sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 7-16.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 7-16 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).
AFFIRMED
msc
5