Ex Parte JerkebyDownload PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 20, 201914432976 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2019) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/432,976 04/01/2015 102721 7590 05/22/2019 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson 1255 Crescent Green Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Christoffer Jerkeby 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. 1009-1367 I P46104 USl 9824 EXAMINER WYSZYNSKI, AUBREY H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/22/2019 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTOFFER JERKEBY Appeal2018-006987 Application 14/432,976 Technology Center 2400 Before: MARC S. HOFF, BETH Z. SHAW, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2018-006987 Application 14/432,976 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 34-65. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The claims are directed to a public key based network. Claim 34, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics: 34. A method for associating a node device with a network domain, the method being performed by a node manager, the method comprising: acquiring an identity of a node device, wherein the identity is indicative of a public key of the node device; at least temporarily storing the public key of the node device; broadcasting a nonce challenge and a public key of the node manager; and receiving, from the node device, the nonce challenge and the public key of the node manager, both of which being signed by a private key of the node device. REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 34-41, 48-55 and 62-65 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Damm-Goossens et al. (US 8,719,952 Bl, issued May 6, 2014) and Kirsch (US 2013/0205136 Al, published Aug. 8, 2013). Claims 42 and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Damm-Goossens, Kirsch, and Mittal et al. (US 2010/03258732 Al, published Dec. 23, 2010). 2 Appeal2018-006987 Application 14/432,976 Claims 44-47 and 56-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Damm-Goossens, Kirsch, and Reen et al. (US 2014/0019754 Al, published Jan. 16, 2014). CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS Claim 34 Appellant argues that neither Damm-Goossens nor Kirsch, whether alone or in combination, teaches a node manager that receives, in addition to a signed nonce challenge, a public key of the node manager that is also signed by the private key of the node device. App. Br. 9. The Examiner points to Damm-Goossens as teaching a challenge-response exchange of cryptographic keys ( one public, one private) and points to Kirsch as teaching the public key of the node manager. Ans. 11. The Examiner finds Kirsch discloses a nonce challenge and a key in paragraphs 90 and 92. Id. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings. In particular, Kirsch describes a method that includes "receiving, from the identity repository, a first signed resource challenge." Kirsch ,r 90. "The first signed resource challenge can be signed using a private key stored/ derived at the identity repository that is associated with a public key stored by the resource." Id. "For example, if the resource challenge comprises a nonce, the signed resource challenge can comprise the nonce signed by the Repository Identity Signature Key Pair (RIS) listed in Table 1." Id. Moreover, Kirsch explains that in one embodiment, "the third data packet from the identity repository further includes the public key associated with the RIS that was used to sign the nonce. In some cases, it may be necessary 3 Appeal2018-006987 Application 14/432,976 to send the encrypted nonce along with the public key to the resource." Id. at ,r 92. Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that the public key in Kirsch's paragraph 92 is not the public key of a "node manager" as required by claim 34, but rather is merely a public key of Kirsch's "identity repository." Reply Br. 4. However, the "node manager" of the present invention is referred to in the Specification as comprising "a processing unit." Spec., p. 4, 1. 28-p.5, 1.1. Appellant provides insufficient evidence proving that the Specification or claims limit the "node manager" in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Kirsch's teachings. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 34. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejection of claims 36-41, 48--49, 62, and 64, which were argued together with claim 34. Dependent claims 35 and 52 Claim 35 depends from claim 34 and further recites that the acquired identity is provided as a Quick Response (QR) code, a barcode, or a personal identification number (PIN) code. The Examiner points to Damm-Goossens as teaching this limitation. Ans. 11-12. Appellant argues Damm-Goossens' authentication server sends a "Ticket ID" to a device, rather than "acquires" it, and that the Ticket ID merely identifies a login session and therefore does not therefore correspond to the "identify of a node device." App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 6-8. However, we agree with the Examiner that Damm-Goossens teaches generating ( or acquiring) an identifier of a login session. Ans. 11- 12 (citing Damm-Goossens, 8:26-40, Fig. 5). In particular, Damm-Goossens 4 Appeal2018-006987 Application 14/432,976 describes that "authentication server 60 generates a Ticket ID suitable for identifying the login session." Damm-Goossens, 8:26-40. "The generated Ticket ID includes an identifier of the login session." Id. Appellant provides insufficient evidence that the Specification or claims limit the claimed "personal identification number code" recited in claim 35 in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Damm-Goossens' teachings of the identifier of a login session. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 35 and 52. Claims 50, 62, and 63 Regarding claim 50, Appellant argues the cited references do not teach or suggest a node manager that sends to a node device both a nonce challenge and the node manager's public key, which are both signed using private key of the node device. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 5-6. However, as explained above with respect to claim 34, we agree with the Examiner's findings that the combination of Damm-Goossens and Kirsch teaches the disputed limitation. For the same reasons discussed above with respect to claim 34, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 50, 62, and 63. Because Appellant has not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 34 above, the remaining pending claims fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). 5 Appeal2018-006987 Application 14/432,976 DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 34---65 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.I36(a)(l)(iv) (2009). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation