Ex Parte Bond

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2017

12937980 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 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.
12/937,980 12/21/2010 Michael Bond CRYP-000110 6989
63614 7590 03/29/2017
HAMTT TON DFSOANOTTS Rr OH A (OFNFR AT \
EXAMINER
Doug
224 South Main Street
POPHAM, JEFFREY D
#114 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
Springville, U 1 S4MD 2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2017 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):
dhamilton @ hdciplaw. com
miquelchamilton@hamiltonshome.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL BOND
Appeal 2016-001099
Application 12/937,9801
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 9—11 and 17—30. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant’s claimed invention relates to “securely caching data, in
particular for storing private and/or security sensitive data, such as biometric
data from electronic identity documents.” Spec. 12. Claim 9 is illustrative
of the subject matter of the appeal and is reproduced below.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is CRYPTOMATHIC
LTD. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001099
Application 12/937,980
9. A computer-implemented method of retrieving from a
secure data cache, the method of retrieving data comprising:
accessing data from a secure data cache, wherein the
secure data cache is created by:
reading unencrypted electronic document
data from an electronic document, the unencrypted
electronic document data including a first part and
a second part;
generating a unique cryptographic key using
only the first part of said unencrypted electronic
document data;
encrypting the second part of the
unencrypted electronic document data using the
unique cryptographic key to yield encrypted
electronic document data; and
storing the encrypted electronic document
data in the secure data cache, wherein the
encrypted data is stored in the secure data cache
without said unique cryptographic key, without
said first part of the unencrypted electronic
document data, and without said second part of the
unencrypted electronic document data;
reading only the first part of the unencrypted electronic
document data on said electronic document;
recalculating, using a processing device, said unique
cryptographic key using said read first part of the unencrypted
electronic document data;
reading, using said processor, the encrypted data stored
in the secure data cache, wherein the read encrypted data is the
encrypted second part of the electronic document data; and
decrypting, using said processor, the encrypted electronic
document data using the recalculated unique cryptographic key,
whereby the unencrypted second part of the electronic
document data is retrieved from said secure data cache.
2
Appeal 2016-001099
Application 12/937,980
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Scheidt (US 7,111,173; issued Sept. 19, 2006).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 9, 11, 17, and 30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Scheidt and Farrugia
et al. (US 2008/0294901 Al; published Nov. 27, 2008) (hereinafter
“Farrugia”).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 10, 21—24, 27, and 28 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Scheidt,
Farrugia, and Kim et al. (US 2008/0229099 Al; published Sept. 18, 2008)
(hereinafter “Kim”).
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Scheidt and Hagler
et al. (US 2007/0049310 Al; published Mar. 1, 2007) (hereinafter “Hagler”).
(5) The Examiner rejected claims 25 and 29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Scheidt, Farrugia,
Kim, and Mohanty (US 2010/0052852 Al; published Mar. 4, 2010).
(6) The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Scheidt, Farrugia, and Wilson
(US 2007/0245144 Al; published Oct. 18, 2007).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
3
Appeal 2016-001099
Application 12/937,980
We disagree with Appellant’s arguments and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own the findings, conclusions, and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in (1) the September 15, 2014 Final Office Action (“Final Act.”
2—33) and (2) the August 21, 2015 Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.” 2—37). We
highlight and address, however, specific findings and arguments below for
emphasis.
(1) Reading from an electronic document
Appellant argues the combination of Scheidt and Farrugia fails to
teach or disclose “reading unencrypted electronic document data from an
electronic document, the unencrypted electronic document data including a
first part and a second part,” as recited in claim 9. Br. 14—16 (emphasis
added). Appellant argues the Examiner cites Scheidt’s “random split” — a
split is part of the information used to generate a key (Scheidt col. 4,11. 38—
42) — located in a header associated with an electronic document as
corresponding to the first part of the unencrypted electronic document data.
Br. 15 (citing Final Act. 13—14). Appellant contends the header, and the
information contained therein, is added information that is not part of the
document — thus, the split is not read from the document. See Br. 13 (citing
Dec. 16, 2013 Declaration of Dr. Cvrcek (hereinafter “Cvrcek Decl.”) 19
(arguing Scheidt teaches using data apart from the document for
encryption)).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Scheidt and
Farrugia teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 3, 7, 9—11; Final
Act. 13—14. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Scheidt’s
splits (i.e., at least one of which is the first portion) are added to the
document as part of the header, and become part of the document, during
4
Appeal 2016-001099
Application 12/937,980
encryption (e.g., during creating a secure data cache). Ans. 9—10 (citing
Scheidt col. 9,11. 35—50); see also Ans. 10 (quoting Scheidt col. 9,11. 36—38
(finding Scheidt teaches “every encrypted object contains added information
that is referred to as the CKM header”) (emphasis added)).
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that it is known in the art of
computing that headers in documents are considered a part of the document.
Ans. 7. The Examiner notes that this finding is in accordance with
Appellant’s Specification which discloses “that the file header may be used
in generation of the key,” thus, underscoring that data added to a document
is part of the document. See Ans. 7 (citing Spec. 146). As to Dr. Cvrcek’s
Declaration, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it does not state that Scheidt
teaches using only data from outside the document, such as biometric
information, for encryption as Appellant alleges, but rather teaches outside
data can be used for some encryption — such is not required. Ans. 4 (citing
Cvrcek 19).
(2) Reading only the first part
Appellant argues the combination of Scheidt and Farrugia fails to
teach or suggest “reading only the first part of the unencrypted electronic
document data on said electronic document,” as recited in claim 9. Br. 17.
Specifically, Appellant argues Scheidt teaches (i) using various key splits
partially to generate a document’s encryption key, (ii) adding these key
splits as additional data to the document along with the encrypted data, and
(iii) reading these key splits that were added to the document for
recalculating the key for decryption. Br. 17 (citing Scheidt col. 9,11. 35—50).
Appellant contends Scheidt, thus, “necessarily requires reading more than
‘the first part’ set forth in claim 9.” Id. at 17—18.
5
Appeal 2016-001099
Application 12/937,980
The Examiner finds, and we agree, the combination of Scheidt and
Farrugia teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 20-21, 23—24;
Final Act. 15. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Scheidt
teaches, or at least suggests, (i) first reading data (e.g., key splits) needed for
decryption from a document’s header (i.e., reading only a first part) and then
(ii) using the one or more splits to recalculate the key to decrypt the second
part of the document (i.e., the second part of the document that was
encrypted with that key). See Ans. 20 (citing Scheidt col. 15,11. 51—52); see
also Scheidt col. 6,11. 4—5 (“During encryption, a user will choose one or
more label splits to be used in the combiner process,” which is used to
generate a key); col. 15,11. 51—52 (“Decryption starts by decrypting and
reading the header of an encrypted object.”). Furthermore, we agree with
the Examiner (Ans. 21) that “reading only the first part” contrasts with the
“encrypted second part,” to allow other information to be read for
recalculating the key so long as the other information is not from the
encrypted second part.
(3) Combining Scheidt and Farrugia
Appellant argues combining Scheidt and Farrugia is improper because
doing so would render them inoperable for their intended purpose or change
their principle of operation. Br. 19. As to Scheidt, Appellant argues it
teaches that the key splits (i.e., the first part of the unencrypted electronic
document data) “must necessarily be stored with the encrypted electronic
data” so that the document can be decrypted later. Br. 20 (citing Scheidt col.
9,11. 36-42). Thus, in accordance with claim 9, if the encrypted document is
stored without Scheidt’s split keys (i.e., “the encrypted data is stored in the
secure data cache . . . without said first part of the unencrypted electronic
6
Appeal 2016-001099
Application 12/937,980
document data”), then Scheidt cannot decrypt the document later, rendering
Scheidt’s invention inoperable. Br. 20. Appellant argues Farrugia functions
similarly in that it teaches storing content keys along with the encrypted data
to function properly. Id. (citing Farrugia Abs., 8, 40).
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Scheidt and Farrugia are properly
combined, and combining their teachings does not render them inoperable
for their intended purpose or change their principle of operation. Ans. 26—
29. As to Scheidt, the Examiner finds, and we agree, it teaches that the
header containing the splits (i.e., the first part of the unencrypted electronic
document data) is separately encrypted, and thus, even if stored with the
encrypted object, the encrypted object is still stored ‘“without said first part
of the unencrypted electronic document data’” because only an encrypted
version of the header is present. Ans. 27—28 (citing Scheidt col. 9,1. 65 to
col. 10,1. 3 (“Most of the header itself is encrypted using a constant header
split... to discourage anyone from trying to break the system by preventing
easy initial success[, and] ... the random split [is additionally, further]
encrypted within the header.”)). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Farrugia
also teaches storing encrypted content separately from its encryption key,
and thus, combining its teachings with Scheidt does not render it inoperable
for its intended purpose or change its principle of operation. See Ans. 27
(citing Farrugia Fig. 6A (storing encrypted content on a Content Caching
Server and content keys in a separate Digital Rights Management Server)).
(4) Farrusia teaches the cryptographic key is maintained
Appellant argues Farrugia teaches “that the cryptographic key is
maintained,” and thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would not combine
“Farrugia in any way that would require recalculating the key as set forth in
7
Appeal 2016-001099
Application 12/937,980
claim 9.” Br. 21. Appellant also argues “regardless of where the key is
stored, it would not need to be recalculated as it is still available.” Id.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Scheidt teaches maintaining key
generation parameters (e.g., splits/labels) and recalculating the key. Ans. 35;
see supra', Scheidt col. 9,11. 35—50. The Examiner cites Farrugia for its
teaching of storing encrypted content separately from its encryption key.
Ans. 35; see also supra', Farrugia Fig. 6A. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, the combined teachings of Scheidt and Farrugia teach, or at least
suggest, storing the key generation parameters (e.g., splits/labels) — not the
keys, as Appellant alleges — separate from the encrypted content. Ans. 35.
Accordingly, Appellant’s argument is inapposite.
CONCFUSION
Based on our findings above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 9, as well as claims 10, 11, 17, and 21—30, as Appellant does not
provide separate arguments for their patentability. We also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of (i) claim 18, based on our above reasoning as
Appellant relies on similar arguments (App. Br. 23—24) as made for claim 9,
and (ii) claims 19 and 20, as Appellant does not provide separate arguments
for their patentability.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 9—11 and 17—30.
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
8