Ex Parte Bellwood et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

12950115 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 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.
12/950,115 11/19/2010 Thomas A. Bellwood AUS920100156US1 7098
48916 7590 01/31/2017
Greg Goshorn, P.C.
9600 Escarpment Blvd.
Suite 745-9
AUSTIN, TX 78749
EXAMINER
PHAM, QUY C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2493
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte THOMAS A. BELLWOOD, JEFFREY B. LOTSPIECH, and
MATTHEW F. RUTKOWSKI
____________

Appeal 2016-005256
Application 12/950,1151
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENA MANTIS MERCADER, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–25, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. App. Br. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is International Business Machines Corp.
2 In this decision, we refer to (1) the Examiner’s Final Action, mailed March
3, 2015 (Final Act.); (2) Appellants’ Brief on Appeal, filed September 1,
2015 (App. Br.); (3) the Examiner’s Answer, mailed February 19. 2016
(Ans.); and (4) Appellants’ Reply Brief, filed April 19, 2016 (Reply Br.).
Appeal 2016-005256
Application 12/950,115
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to “providing services over a
network and, more specifically, to locating services using broadcast
encryption.” Spec. ¶ 1. In particular, the present invention “[p]rovid[s] []
techniques to enable, using broadcast encryption, a device to locate a service
offered by a server with the knowledge that the service offered by the server
is a trusted service.” Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method, comprising:
generating an enhanced management key block (eMKB)
comprising a broadcast encryption management key block
(MKB) data and information corresponding to a plurality of
service providers;
digitally signing the eMKB with a verification signature to
produce a digitally signed eMKB operable by a device to verify,
using the verification signature, authenticity of each service
provider of the plurality of service providers based upon a
verification of the digitally-signed eMKB; and
transmitting the digitally signed eMKB, including the
verification signature, to the device.

THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–15, 19–21, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Ishizaka et al. (US 2003/0138100 A1; pub. Jul.
24, 2003) (“Ishizaka”) and Collar et al. (US 2006/0129490 A1; filed Jun. 15,
2006) (“Collar”). Final Act. 4–10.
Claims 4, 5, 10–11, 16–17, 22, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as unpatentable over Ishizaka, Collar, and Bellwood et al. (US
2009/0157551 A1; pub. Jun. 18, 2009) (“Bellwood”). Final Act. 10–11.
Appeal 2016-005256
Application 12/950,115
3
Claims 6, 12, 18, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ishizaka, Collar, Bellwood, and Gjerde et al. (US
2006/0259199 A1; pub. Nov. 16, 2006) (“Gjerde”). Final Act. 11–12.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON ISHIZAKA AND COLLAR
Claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–15, 19–21, and 25
Based on the record before us, we are persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1–3, 7–9, 13–15, 19–21, and 25.
The Examiner here relies on Ishizaka as teaching an enhanced
management key block (eMKB), including a management key block (MKB)
as well as information corresponding to a service provider, and digitally
signing the eMKB. In particular, the Examiner finds that Ishizaka describes
an EKB file including link information such as a URL to a service provider,
i.e. information corresponding to a service provider. Final Act. 3. Relying
on Ishizaka’s paragraph 121, the Examiner explains that
the EKB file in Figure 11 comprises version field, digital
signature field, encrypted key fields, etc. (entity of EKB as
described in Figure 12), and the next EKB field containing a URL
to a Home Page where EKB data can be downloaded. The URL
is the information corresponding to a service provider providing
downloading service of the EKB data.
Ans. 3 (emphasis added).
We disagree. Ishizaka’s paragraph 121 does not describe an
independent EKB file, as shown in Figure 11, including the next EKB field
containing a URL to a Home Page. Rather, paragraph 121 refers to the
separate scenarios for accessing the EKB data as indicated in the flag field of
the extended EKB unit. Ishizaka ¶ 110 (“In the EKB unit, [which is
included in a description table,] a flag field designates the presence/absence
Appeal 2016-005256
Application 12/950,115
4
of data entity (EKB) of the unit and a referencing method therefor.”); see
also Ishizaka ¶¶ 112, 121. As shown in Figure 10, reproduced below, the
EKB field may indicate (1) there is no EKB data, (2) there is included EKB
data, (3) there is EKB data in an independent file with link information to
access the independent file, and (4) the EKB is accessible through the
internet with link information.

Ishizaka’s Figure 10 Depicting EKB Field Information.
Each scenario identifies if there is EKB data and how the EKB data
may be obtained, not what is included within an independent EKB file or
within the EKB data depicted in Figure 11. See, e.g., Ishizaka ¶¶ 112–113;
Reply Br. 2. As such, we are persuaded that the Examiner has not
established that Ishizaka teaches an eMKB including information
corresponding to a service provider or digitally signing the eMKB with a
verification signature to produce a digitally signed eMKB operable by a
device to verify, using the verification signature, authenticity of the service
provider based upon a verification of the digitally-signed eMKB.
Accordingly, the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, as well as
independent claims 7, 13, 19, and 25 which recite similar limitations, and 2,
Appeal 2016-005256
Application 12/950,115
5
3, 8, 9, 14, 15, 20, and 21 depending therefrom, as unpatentable over
Ishizaka and Collar.

ANALYSIS
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 4–6, 10–12, 16–18, and 22–24
For the reasons discussed above, we similarly find that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 4–6, 10–12, 16–18, and 22–24, which depend
directly or indirectly from one of independent claims 1, 7, 13, and 19.
Accordingly, we do not affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4–6, 10–
12, 16–18, and 22–24 as unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior
art.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25 is reversed.

REVERSED