Ex Parte Dinov

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12382023 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/382,023 0310612009
102824 7590 05/31/2016
HAVERSTOCK & OWENS, LLP
162 N. WOLFE ROAD
SUNNYVALE, CA 94086
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Konstantin D Dinov
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.
SONY-51000 5009
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, LINGLAN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2016 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 KONSTANTIN D. DINOV
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, LARRY J. HUME, and SCOTT B. HOWARD,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-12, and 14--27. Appellant has previously
canceled claims 5 and 13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellant, the real parties in interest are Sony Corp. and
Sony Electronics, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
The Invention
Appellant's disclosed and claimed
invention relates generally to a system and method for
implementing enhanced encryption and authentication by
decoupling the user authentication from data storage and
access, and more particularly, to a system and method whereby
user information stored by a service provider is encrypted using
a Transient Password and whereby access to the encrypted user
information is protected by a separate access control server.
Spec. ,-r 1.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 17, and 27, reproduced below, are representative of the
subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested limitations):
1. An authentication system, comprising:
a cryptograph module, that receives a user password from
a client terminal and generates a first password using a first
one-way cryptographic scheme and a second password using a
second one-way cryptographic scheme;
an access control server device, including an access
control database that stores an access password, and an
interface for communicating with the cryptograph module to
obtain the first password from the cryptograph module, and
communicating with a service provider to authorize a client
terminal when the first password matches the access password;
2 Our decision relies upon Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
Jan. 16, 2014); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed June 25, 2014); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 8, 2014); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Sept. 30, 2013); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Mar. 6, 2009).
2
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
the service provider having a user information database
that stores encrypted user information, and a decryption module
that decrypts user information using the second password and
grants the client terminal access to services when the access
control server authenticates the client terminal, wherein the
encrypted user information is encrypted using a transient
password and the service provider deletes the transient
password when communication with the client terminal
concludes.
17. An authentication method used by an access
control server, comprising:
receiving a password, corresponding to a client;
matching the password to an access password, from an
access database, corresponding to the client;
authenticating the client, to a service provider, if the
password matches the access password, wherein the service
provider stores encrypted user information, wherein the
encrypted user information is encrypted using a transient
password and the service provider deletes the transient
password when communication with a client terminal
concludes.
27. An authentication system, comprising:
a cryptograph module, that receives a user password from
a client terminal and generates a first password using a first
one-way cryptographic scheme and a second password using a
second one-way cryptographic scheme;
an access control server device, including an access
control database that stores an access password, and an
interface for communicating with the cryptograph module to
obtain the first password from the cryptograph module, and
communicating with a plurality of service providers to
authorize a client terminal when the first password matches the
access password;
the plurality of service providers each having a user
information database that stores encrypted user information,
3
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
and a decryption module that decrypts user information using
the second password and grants the client terminal access to
services when the access control server authenticates the client
terminal, wherein the encrypted user information is encrypted
using different transient passwords on each service provider of
the plurality of service providers and each service provider
deletes a transient password when communication with the
client terminal concludes.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Brickell
Annie et al. ("Annie")
Ko et al. ("Ko")
US 6,834, 112B1 Dec. 21, 2004
US 2007 /0056021 Al Mar. 8, 2007
US 2008/0307020 Al Dec. 11, 2008
Appellant's Admitted Prior Art, Specification, i-fi-1 4--10 (Background) and
Fig. 1 ("Prior Art") (hereinafter "AAP A").
Rejections on Appeal
RI. Claims 1--4, 6-12, 14--16, and 21-27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Brickell,
Annie, AAP A, and Ko. Final Act. 4.
R2. Claims 17 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Brickell, AAP A, and Ko. Final
Act. 12.
R3. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over the combination of Brickell, AAP A, Ko, and Annie.
Final Act. 13.
4
Appeal2014-007723
Application I2/382,023
CLAIM GROUPING3
Based on Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 6-I3), we decide the
appeal of obviousness Rejection RI of claims I--4 and 6-8 on the basis of
representative claim I; we decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection RI of
claims 9-I2 and I4-I6 on the basis of representative claim 9; and we decide
the appeal of obviousness Rejection RI of claims 2 I-26 on the basis of
representative claim 2 I. We decide Rejection RI of separately argued
claim 27, infra.
We decide Rejection R2 of claims I 7 and 20 on the basis of
representative claim I 7.
Remaining claims I8 and I9 in Rejection R3, not argued separately,
stand or fall with independent claim I 7 from which they depend. 4
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision; we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
3 Appellant states, "[t]he claims are grouped separately below to indicate
that they do not stand or fall together." App. Br. 9. Although Appellant
notionally argues the claims separately as grouped herein, we note the same
dispositive issue is presented with respect to Rejections RI and R2 of
claims I, 9, I 7, and 2 I, and their respective claim groupings.
4 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
We disagree with Appellant's arguments with respect to claims 1--4,
6-12, and 14--27, and we incorporate herein and 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 and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellant's arguments. We incorporate such
findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted.
However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows.
1. Rejection RI of Claims 1--4 and 6-8
Issue 1
Appellant argues (App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 4---6) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Brickell, Annie, AAP A, and Ko is in error. These
contentions present us with the following dispositive issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a system that includes, inter alia, a "service provider having a
user information database that stores encrypted user information," "wherein
the encrypted user information is encrypted using a transient password and
the service provider deletes the transient password when communication
with the client terminal concludes," as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Appellant generally contends none of the cited prior art teaches or
suggests the contested limitation of claim 1, i.e., "wherein the encrypted user
information is encrypted using a transient password and the service provider
deletes the transient password when communication with the client terminal
6
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
concludes." App. Br. 6-8. Appellant specifically argues that Ko, relied
upon by the Examiner as teaching the contested limitation (Final Act. 6-7),
is deficient, because "Ko merely mentions the system removes the
temporary password but does not specify when. Ko does not teach the
service provider deletes the transient password when communication with
the client terminal concludes. Ko also does not teach the transient password
is deleted after the user information is encrypted." App. Br. 8.
In response, the Examiner finds Ko teaches or at least suggests the
contested limitation of claim 1:
the concept of a "transient" (i.e. temporary) password I key for
encryption I decryption purpose and deleting of the transient
password/key after it is used and no longer needed - the
purpose of the transient key is for decrypting user information
and provide service based on the decrypted information,
therefore, when the communication concludes, the decryption
key will not be needed. One of ordinary skill in the art would
readily recognize that deleting a temporary password/key when
it is no longer needed would reduce the change unauthorized
access to the data and thus make the system more secure.
Ans. 4--5.
Appellant further contends:
The password of Ko could be removed before it is used, thus
requiring another temporary password - this is similar to a "time
out" implementation used by many websites for added security.
The password of Ko could be removed immediately after it is
used to minimize the amount of time the temporary password is
available. The password of Ko could be made available for a
longer or shorter period of time. Ko simply does not indicate
when the temporary password is removed. Applicants assert
more is being read into Ko to assume one of ordinary skill in
the art would know to delete the temporary password when
communication ends ... Ko does not teach or make obvious the
7
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
limitation that: the service provider deletes the transient
password when communication with the client terminal
concludes.
App. Br. 8.
The Examiner responds by finding, "although Ko teaches an added
feature that deletes the password based on a 'time out' consideration as an
additional security measure, such added feature is clearly optional ....
Therefore, the examiner maintains ... Ko clearly teaches the concept of
deleting a transient I temporary password after it is no longer used." Ans. 5.
We note Appellant's challenge to the references individually is not
convincing of error in the Examiner's position. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981) ("one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on
combinations of references" (citations omitted)). Additionally, "the
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'! Co.
v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Furthermore, the artisan is not
compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the
other without the exercise of independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc.
v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In the present case,
the Examiner finds that the proposed combination would have resulted in
using Brickell, Annie, and the AAP A in combination with the known
techniques of Ko "to improve [a] similar system in the same way [as]
provided in [the prior art teachings]." Ans. 5. We find this articulated
rationale to be sufficient to justify the combination. See also Final Act. 6-7.
8
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, and grouped
claims 2--4 and 6-8 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
2. Rejection RI of Claims 9-12 and 14--16
Issue 2
Although notionally argued and grouped separately for purposes of
this Appeal (App. Br. 9), Appellant's arguments regarding claim 9 (App.
Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 4--6) tum on the same dispositive issue identified
above with respect to claim 1, i.e., Issue 1, supra.5
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
Issue 1 and claim 1, and on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited
prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 9,
nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 9, and grouped claims 10-12 and 14--16 which fall
therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
5 The contested limitation of method claim 9 is the step of "encrypting user
information using a transient password to generate the encrypted user
information, wherein the transient password is deleted after the user
information is encrypted" (emphasis added), which we find presents
substantially the same issue as the contested limitation of claim 1.
9
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
3. Rejection RI of Claims 21-26
Issue 3
Although notionally argued and grouped separately for purposes of
this Appeal (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4---6), Appellant's arguments regarding
claim 21 tum on the same dispositive issue identified above with respect to
claim 1, i.e., Issue 1, supra.6
With respect to dependent claim 25, Appellant "respectfully
disagree[s] with Official Notice being taken regarding Claim 25.7 Although
a unique user login is well known in the art, Applicants assert that a transient
password being unique to a user is not well known in the art. Thus,
Applicants respectfully request support for the Official Notice." App.
Br. 11.
As noted by the court in In re Ahlert, 424 F .2d 1088, 1091 (CCP A
1970), the notice of facts beyond the record which may be taken by the
Examiner must be "capable of such instant and unquestionable
demonstration as to defy dispute" (citing In re Knapp Monarch Co., 296
F.2d 230 (CCPA 1961)).
6 The contested limitation of method claim 21 is the step of" granting the
client access to services after receiving the authentication transmission and
decrypting the user information, wherein the encrypted user information is
encrypted using a transient password and the transient password is deleted
when communication with a client terminal concludes" (emphasis added),
which we find presents substantially the same issue as the contested
limitation of claim 1.
7 Claim 25 recites, " [ t ]he authentication method of claim 21 wherein the
transient password is unique to a user."
10
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
We find Appellant has not adequately traversed the Examiner's taking
of Official Notice. "To adequately traverse such a finding, an applicant must
specifically point out the supposed errors in the examiner's action, which
would include stating why the noticed fact is not considered to be common
knowledge or well-known in the art. See 37 CPR 1.11 l(b)." MPEP
§ 2144.03(C) (emphasis added). An adequate rebuttal of the Examiner's
taking of Official Notice must contain sufficient information or argument to
create on its face a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying
the Examiner's notice of what is well known to one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 728 (CCPA 1971).
In this appeal, Appellant has not stated why the noticed fact is not
well known in the art, and has not created a reasonable doubt as to the
circumstances justifying the Examiner's notice of what is well known. We
find the fact that the use of transient passwords unique to a user is capable of
"instant and unquestionable demonstration as being well-known."
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
Issue 1 and claim 1, and on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited
prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 21,
nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 21, and grouped claims 22-26 which fall therewith. See
Claim Grouping, supra.
11
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
4. Rejection RI of Claim 27
Issue 4
Appellant argues (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 4---6) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Brickell, Annie, AAP A, and Ko is in error. These
contentions present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests a system that includes, inter alia, a plurality of service providers
"each having a user information database that stores encrypted user
information ... wherein the encrypted user information is encrypted using
different transient passwords on each service provider of the plurality of
service providers and each service provider deletes a transient password
when communication with the client terminal concludes," as recited in
claim 27 (emphasis added)?
Analysis
Regarding claim 27, Appellant recites portions of the claim limitations
(i.e., encryption "using different transient passwords"), and contends the
references do not teach the limitation. App. Br. 12. Such statements are not
considered to be arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement
which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an
argument for separate patentability of the claim."); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 201 l)("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
12
Appeal2014-007723
Application I2/382,023
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art."). Thus, we do
not find Appellant's arguments to be persuasive.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the
disputed limitation of claim 27, nor do we find error in the Examiner's
resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 27.
5. Rejection R2 of Claims I 7 and 20
Issue 5
Although claim I 7 is rejected over a different combination of
references in Rejection R2 than in Rejection RI of claim I, and is notionally
argued and grouped separately for purposes of this Appeal (App. Br. 9),
Appellant's arguments regarding claim I 7 (App. Br. I2-I3; Reply Br. 4---6)
tum on the same dispositive issue identified above with respect to claim I,
i.e., Issue 1, supra.8
Similar to Appellant's response to Rejection RI of claim I 7, supra, we
find Appellant also does not substantively argue any deficiency in the
Examiner's position, other than to recite the claim language, and merely
assert that the reference combination does not teach or suggest the contested
limitation of claim I 7.
8 The contested limitation of method claim I 7 is the "authenticating" step
"wherein ... the service provider deletes the transient password when
communication with a client terminal concludes" (emphasis added), which
we find presents substantially the same issue as the contested limitation of
claim I.
I3
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above with respect to
Issue 1 and claim 1, and on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited
prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 17,
nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of
obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
independent claim 17, and grouped claim 20 which falls therewith. See
Claim Grouping, supra.
6. Rejection R3 of Claims 18 and 19
In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed
to obviousness rejection R3 of claims 18 and 19 under § 103 (see App.
Br. 13), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Arguments not
made are waived.
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellant may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 4---6) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in
the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised
in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the
Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellant has not shown.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections RI
through R3 of claims 1--4, 6-12, and 14--27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections.
14
Appeal2014-007723
Application 12/382,023
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-12,
and 14--27.
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) (2011).
AFFIRMED
15