Ex Parte Huque et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2018

13583157 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/583, 157 11/19/2012
38106 7590 08/13/2018
Seed IP Law Group LLP/ST (EP ORIGINATING)
701 FIFTH AVENUE, SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104-7092
Thierry Huque
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.
10ZV2051US01813063432USPC 5932
EXAMINER
DU,HUNGK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2018 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):
USPTOeAction@SeedIP.com
pairlinkdktg@seedip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THIERRY HUQUE and OLIVIER VAN NIEUWENHUYZE
Appeal2018-002776
Application 13/583,157
Technology Center 2600
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOV AN and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-7 and 12-21
under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012).
We affirm.
Introduction
"Embodiments of the invention are generally related to mobile
electronic devices such as smartphones that include a central processing unit
(CPU) for executing programs, one or more secure memory devices such as
a subscriber identity module (SIM) or a security module (SSE), and a
wireless interface module such as a contactless front end (CLP), which may
be a near field communication (NFC) router." Appeal Brief 3.
Appeal2018-002776
Application 13/583,157
Illustrative Claim
1. A method, comprising:
protecting data stored in a security module of a telecommunication
device having a near field communication (NFC) router, the NFC router
having a plurality of individually assignable gates, at least some of the
plurality of individually assignable gates concurrently coupleable to a first
node via a first communication pipe and to a second node via a second pipe,
assignments of the individually assignable gates defined in a routing table,
the protecting including the acts of:
receiving a request to provide data from the security module to
the NFC router;
verifying a signature of the routing table; and
preventing a provision of the requested data from the security
module based on a failure to verify the signature.
Re} ections on Appeal
Claim 7 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of copending
Application Number 13/583,148 in view of Charrat et al. (US Patent
Application Publication 2009/0206984 Al; published August 20, 2009).
Final Action 4--9.
Claim 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. § 112
(pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly
point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint
inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. Final Action
10.
Claims 1, 2, 4--6, 12-14 and 17-19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Charrat and Banker (US Patent
2
Appeal2018-002776
Application 13/583,157
Application Publication 2005/0013310 Al; published January 20, 2005).
Answer 11-23.
Claim 3 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Charrat, Banker and Arditti (US Patent Application
Publication 2007/0186097 Al; published August 9, 2007). Answer 24--25.
Claims 7, 15 and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
as being unpatentable over Charrat, Banker and Florek (US Patent
Application Publication 2010/0274677 Al; published October 28, 2010).
Answer 25-26.
Claims 16 and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Charrat, Banker and Shimbo (US Patent 6,092,191;
issued July 18, 2000). Answer 26-28.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Briefs (filed April 17, 2017 and June 15, 2017), the
Reply Brief (filed January 17, 2018), the Answer (mailed November 17,
2017) and the Final Action (mailed November 17, 2016) for the respective
details.
Double Patenting Rejection
Appellants do not challenge the double patenting rejection. See
Appeal Brief 11-12. Because the rejection is provisional, we exercise our
discretion and decline to address this rejection. See Ex Parte Moncla, 95
USPQ2d 1884, 1885 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
35 U.S.C. § 112 Rejection
Appellants contends, "[I]t is noted that claim 6 depends from claim 2,
which itself depends from claim 1. Accordingly, the 'reference signature' of
3
Appeal2018-002776
Application 13/583,157
claim 6 is introduced in claim 2, and there are no issues with respect to
antecedent basis." Appeal Brief 13.
Appellants argue:
Claim 1 is broader than claim 6, and accordingly, the "signature"
verified in claim 1 may embrace the reference signature of claim
6 or the signature verified in claim 1 may embrace a different
signature. In addition, or in the alternative, with respect to claim
6, either the current signature or the reference signature may
fulfill the signature that is verified in claim 1, or the current
signature and the reference signature may stand alone in the
comparison performed in claim 6.
Appeal Brief 13.
The Examiner finds:
It is not clear that whether the operations "verifying a signature
of the routing table" [ of claim 1] and "performing a comparison
of a current signature of the routing table with the reference
signature" [ of claim 6] are two distinct operations since the
claims do not specifically direct the "a current signature" to be
the same signature as the "a signature" recited in claim 1.
Answer 2-3.
There is no dispute on the record before us that claim 6 is amenable to
more than one construction (particularly: (1) the recited "signature" may
refer to various claimed signatures, and (2) the "comparison" step may----or
may not-be part of the "verifying" step). We find, therefore, that
Appellants' arguments further support the Examiner determination of
indefiniteness. SeeExparteMiyazaki, 89USPQ2d 1207, 1211-13 (BPAI
2008) (precedential) (holding that "if a claim is amenable to two or more
plausible claim constructions, the US PTO is justified in requiring the
applicant to more precisely define the metes and bounds of the claimed
invention by holding the claim unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite."). Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's
4
Appeal2018-002776
Application 13/583,157
determination of indefiniteness and sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 112
Rejection of claim 6.
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection
Claim 1 requires the "assignments of the individually assignable gates
[to be] defined in a routing table." Appellants' Specification discloses the
gates in the context of, "Router 18 [which] comprises a processor and
volatile and non-volatile memories for storing, among others, a routing table
for the different logic gates. Some gates are reserved for router
administration functions while others can be freely assigned by the router."
Specification page 5, lines 16-19. The type of the logic gates employed by
the claimed invention is not indicated. Appellants argue that Charrat' s
buffers are not individually assigned logic gates. See Reply Brief 5.
Appellants are aware that logic gates, non-inverting amplifiers, are
employed as buffers in the art. See,for example, Banker paragraph 275.
Claim 1, in light of the Specification, does not preclude the individual gates
from being construed in any particular circuit configuration. Claim 1 merely
requires the gates to be able to be assigned as defined in a routing table.
Charrat shows a routing Table 1 where the gate (buffer) is defined via
several contactless communication protocols such as ISO A. See Charrat,
paragraph 5. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner's findings and find
Appellants' arguments unpersuasive of Examiner's error. We sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as
independent claims 12 and 17 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 1 7.
We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of dependent claims
2, 3, 5-7, 13-16 and 18-21, not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 17-18.
The Examiner finds in regard to claim 4, "Charrat in view of Banker
teaches the method of claim 2," because the references "discuss[]
5
Appeal2018-002776
Application 13/583,157
implementing the CRC calculation on the NFC router and the CRC
verification on the secure processor HP2), wherein the reference signature is
calculated by the NFC router (Banker discusses the calculating a new CRC
value on each update to the routing table [par 0159]." Final Action 20.
Appellants argue:
Banker at [0159] teaches a CRC calculation, but there is no
teaching found where the CRC is calculated by the NFC router.
Instead, such calculation is performed in a master hub 49 by
GUMP head process 20 and not an NFC router. Banker at FIGS.
1, 2, 4, 6A---6C, and the associated discussion at [0088], [0127] -
[0129], [0147]- [0159]. Banker at FIGS. 6A---6C show a process
of automatic topology discovery, but Banker calculates a CRC
value in a master hub 49. Banker's master hub 49 is not an NFC
router.
Appeal Brief 18. The Examiner relied upon Charrat, not Banker, to disclose
using a NFC router for the calculation of the CRC. See Final Action 20.
"Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
references." In re Merck, 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (Fed. Cir. 1981)). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 4.
DECISION
The Examiner's indefiniteness rejection of claim 6 is affirmed.
The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-7 and 12-21 are
affirmed.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(v).
6
Appeal2018-002776
Application 13/583,157
AFFIRMED
7