Ex Parte Everhart

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 3, 2009

09644579 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 3, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte GLENN C. EVERHART
_____________

Appeal 2009-006616
Application 09/644,579
Technology Center 2400
______________

Decided: December 4, 2009
_______________

Before, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and ELENI
MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 35.
We reverse.
Appeal 2009-006616
Application 09/644,579
INVENTION
The invention is directed toward a system for improved error
detection of data over a network. See page 3 of Appellant’s Specification.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A system for error detection for detecting errors in data
transmitted between a server and a client, the system comprising:
an interface means to a client;
a server configured with a pre-processing means and a post-
processing means which operate together to detect whether a
parameter value sent from the server to the client and subsequently
returned to the server from the client has been tampered with, wherein
the pre-processing means and post-processing means further comprise
a hashing means that operates on a parameter value and on a received
parameter value;
a transmitted data string transmitted to the client comprising the
parameter value and the hash of the parameter value;
a received data string received from the client comprising the
received parameter value and hash of the parameter value;
a communication link connecting the server to the client; and
a comparison means,
wherein the post-processing means operates on the received
parameter value to determine the hash of the received parameter
value, wherein further the comparison means compares the hash of the
parameter value to the hash of the received parameter value to
determine if the parameter value transmitted to the client is the same
as the received parameter value received from the client, wherein
further an unfavorable comparison of the hash of the parameter value
and the hash of the received parameter value indicates that the
parameter value was tampered with after the transmitted data string
was transmitted to the client.

REFERENCES
Chang US 6,105,012 Aug. 15, 2000
Gardenswartz US 6,298,330 B1 Oct. 2, 2001
Wheeler US 6,820,202 B1 Nov. 16, 2004
2

Appeal 2009-006616
Application 09/644,579

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4 through 7, 10, 15, 16, and 22
through 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Wheeler.
The Examiner has rejected claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 11 through 14, 17, 18,
and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wheeler in view
of Chang.
The Examiner has rejected claims 20, 21, and 35 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wheeler in view of Gardenswartz.

ISSUE
Appellant argues on pages 11 through 34 of the Appeal Brief1 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4 through 7, 10, 15, 16, and 22 through 34
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is in error. Appellant asserts that the independent
claims recite transmitting a data string with a parameter value and a hash of
a parameter value to a client and receiving back from the client a modified
data string with a parameter value and a hash value. Brief 11. Appellant
argues that Wheeler does teach a system where a message is subject to a
preprocessing by a sender, sent by the sender to a receiver and where the
sender receives a returned message that is subject to post-processing for
comparison to the original pre-processed message. Brief 12.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions present us with the issue: Has
Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the Wheeler teaches

1 Throughout the opinion we refer to the Brief dated July 2, 2008 and Reply
Brief dated January 22, 2007.
3

Appeal 2009-006616
Application 09/644,579

a system where a message is processed prior to being sent by a sender, a
message received at the sender is processed and the two processed messages
compared as recited in the independent claims?2

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Wheeler teaches a method to use digital signatures to reliably
identify a sender and the accuracy of an electronic message
without the user of certifying authorities. Col. 1, ll. 6-10.
2. In Wheeler’s system prior to sending a message from a user to
an institution, the institution records an encoding key and
associates it with account information from a sender. Col. 2, ll.
48-54, col. 10, ll. 38-50.
3. When the user sends a message to the institution, the message is
first signed using the public key, the message is sent to the
institution. The public key is not part of the message sent.
Wheeler col. 10, ll. 51-67, col. 11, ll. 1-7.
4. The institution receives the message and digital signature,
decodes the message using the previously stored public key and
validates the user’s signature. Wheeler col. 11, ll. 7-16.

ANALYSIS
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that Wheeler teaches a system for detecting errors as recited in

2 Appellant’s additional arguments raise further issues which we do not
reach as this issue is dispositive of the case.
4

Appeal 2009-006616
Application 09/644,579
the independent claims. Independent claim 1 recites a server for pre-
processing and post processing to “detect whether a parameter value sent
from the server to the client and subsequently returned to the server from the
client has been tampered with.” Claim 1 further recites transmitting to the
client a parameter value and a hash of the parameter value, and receiving
from the client a parameter value and a hash of the parameter value. The
sent hash value and the received hash value are compared to determine if the
parameter value of the sent and received message is the same. Thus, the
scope of independent claim 1 includes that the sender performs a comparison
of a sent value and a received value to determine if the parameter value
received is the same as sent. Independent claims 10, 25, 28, and 31 are all of
different scopes but similarly recite limitations directed to a sender
performing a comparison of a sent value and a received value to determine if
the parameter value received is the same as sent.
The Examiner finds that Wheeler’s teaching of sending a message
from a client to a server is the equivalent to claimed transmitting a data
string to a client. Answer 3 and 10. The Examiner considers Wheeler’s
teaching of exchanging a public key prior to sending a message and attached
digital signature to be equivalent to the claimed pre-processing. Answer 3
and 10. Further, the Examiner finds that the claimed step of receiving a
modified data string from the client to be met by Wheeler’s teaching of
receiving a message that utilizes the digital signature. Answer 3-4. We
concur with the Examiner’s finding that Wheeler teaches exchanging a
public key prior to sending a message and using the public key to confirm
that a message sent from a sender to a receiver is authentic. Facts 1-4.
However, the Examiner’s rejection has not identified, nor do we find that a
teaching in Wheeler that the message is confirmed at the sender, i.e. we do
5

Appeal 2009-006616
Application 09/644,579
not find that Wheeler teaches that a message is sent to a client, and the
message received back from the client is authenticated. Thus, the Examiner
has shown that the message is authenticated at the receiver, but has not
shown that the receiver’s response is authenticated by the sender to confirm
that the message was not tampered with. Accordingly, because Appellant
has shown error in the Examiner’s position that Wheeler teaches all of the
limitations of the independent claims and we will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 4 through 7, 10, 15, 16, and 22 through 34 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Wheeler.
The Examiner has not shown that the teachings of Chang or
Gardenswartz teach the features discussed above that are missing from
Wheeler. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of:
claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 11 through 14, 17, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wheeler in view of Chang; or the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 20, 21, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wheeler in view of Gardenswartz.

6

Appeal 2009-006616
Application 09/644,579
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 35 is
reversed.
REVERSED

ELD

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
1900 K STREET, N.W.
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1109
7