Ex Parte Crook

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

13308150 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/308, 150 11130/2011
107681 7590 08/01/2016
NCR Corporation
3097 Satelite Boulevard
Building 700, 2nd Floor, Law Department
Duluth, GA 30096
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JOHN CROOK
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.
ll-209-U02 8231
EXAMINER
SHOLEMAN, ABU S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
PTOMail.Law@ncr.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN CROOK
Appeal2015-000347
Application 13/308,150
Technology Center 2400
Before: DEBF~A K. STEPHENS, !LAF~A L. SZPONDO\VSF.1,
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-000347
Application 13/308,150
STATEMENT OF CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-
19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to optical codes with encrypted data.
(Spec. i-f 2.) Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. An optical code scanner including:
an image capture device where the image capture device
captures an image of an optical code presented to the optical
code scanner for reading;
a computer memory adapted to store computer data and
computer executable instructions; and
a processor in communication with the image capture device,
and the computer memory where the processor executes the
instructions and where the instructions cause the processor to
perform steps including:
receiving the captured image of the optical code from the image
capture device;
processing the received image to recover data stored in the
optical code where a portion of the recovered data is encrypted;
identifying a cryptographic key associated with the
recovered data from optical code;
2
Appeal2015-000347
Application 13/308,150
decrypting using the cryptographic key the encrypted portion of
the recovered data to produce a clear text version of the
encrypted portion; and
authenticating the recovered data using information from the
clear text version of the encrypted data and rejecting the optical
code if the authentication fails and accepting the optical code
data if the authentication passes.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Fann us 6,279,828 Aug. 28, 2001
Simske et al. US 2007/0256136 Al Nov. 1, 2007
Parker-Malchak US 7,620,568 Bl Nov. 17, 2009
Silverbook et al. US 2011/0215145 Al Sep. 8, 2011
Jozwiak et al. US 2012/0069992 Al Mar. 22, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 11 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Silverbrook and Simske. (Final Act.
8.)
Claims 2--4, 12-14, 16, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Silverbrook, Simske
and Jozwiak. (Final Act. 12.)
Claims 5, 6, and 8-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Parker-Malchak and Simske.
(Final Act. 18.)
3
Appeal2015-000347
Application 13/308,150
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Parker-Malchak, Simske, and Jozwiak.
(Final Act. 22.)
Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Silverbrook, Simske, and Parker-
Malchak. (Final Act. 17 .)
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Silverbrook, Simske, and Fann. (Final
Act. 23.)
ISSUE
Whether Simske teaches or suggests a cryptographic key as recited in
independent claim 1? (App. Br. 10.)
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Simske as teaching or suggesting the
cryptographic key recited in independent claim 1. (Final Act. 10-11.)
Appellant argues that Simske fails to teach or suggest the recited key
because Simske' s disclosed key is an encoded identifier that does not
decrypt data for authentication. (App. Br. 10-11.)
We are not persuaded by this argument. As the Examiner correctly
finds, Simske discloses embedding a key in an orthogonal instrument on an
object (14). (Ans. 3--4; Simske i-f 31-32.) Simske further discloses decoding
that key to render object-specific authenticating data from encrypted data on
instruments (16), on the same object (i.e., using the key to decrypt that data).
(Ans. 4, Simske i-fi-123, 26-27, 33.) Simske uses the rendered data to
4
Appeal2015-000347
Application 13/308,150
determine the authenticity of the package. (Ans. 4, Simske il 27.)
Therefore, as the Examiner correctly finds, Simske uses its disclosed key to
decrypt data for authentication. (Ans. 3--4.) Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that Simske fails to teach or suggest the recited key.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant for the first time argues that Simske' s
key is not included in a portion of the optical code that it used to decrypt
another portion of the same optical code. (Reply Br. 2-3.) This argument
should have been presented with the Appeal Brief because the Final Action
relies on the orthogonal instrument and the plurality of instruments 16 for
the recited key and the data it decrypts, respectively. (Final Act. 2.)
Appellant has not explained why, nor is it apparent that, these arguments
were necessitated by a new point in the Answer or any other circumstance
constituting "good cause" for its belated presentation. Therefore, the issue
of whether the orthogonal identifier and instruments 16 constitute or suggest
one optical code was ripe for the Appeal Brief. 3 7 C.F .R. § 41.41 (b )(2 ).
Nevertheless, even if we were to consider the argument, we would not
find it persuasive. Appellant has not presented sufficient persuasive
arguments or evidence demonstrating that, in Simske, the orthogonal
instrument and instruments 16, which are all placed on object 14, do not
teach or suggest one optical code containing their collective data. (Reply Br.
2-3; Simske Fig. lB, ifif 31-33.)
Appellant argues that Simske even in combination with Silverbrook
fails to teach or suggest the recited key. (App. Br. 11.) We are not
persuaded by this argument because, inter alia, as discussed above, we are
not persuaded that Simske alone fails to teach or suggest the recited key.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
5
Appeal2015-000347
Application 13/308,150
Appellant presents the same arguments for claims 2-19 as for claim 1.
(App. Br. 10-13.) Accordingly, we also sustain the rejections of claims 2-
19.
DECISION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-19.
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) (2009).
AFFIRMED
6