Ex Parte KANGDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613676745 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/676,745 11/14/2012 Bo-Gyeong KANG 678-4556 (PI 8924) 8710 66547 7590 12/29/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER BAYOU, YONAS A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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): pto @ farrelliplaw. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BO-GYEONG KANG Appeal 2015-008174 Application 13/676,745 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 18—41. Claims 1—17 have been cancelled. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. Appeal 2015-008174 Application 13/676,745 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention is directed to a method, host apparatus and machine-readable storage medium for authenticating a storage apparatus. Spec. 1. Claim 18, reproduced below with the disputed limitations in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 18. A method for authentication between a host apparatus and a storage apparatus, the method comprising the steps of: sending a host certificate of the host apparatus to the storage apparatus; receiving a storage certificate of the storage apparatus from the storage apparatus; checking a first revocation list stored in the host apparatus to ensure that the storage apparatus has not been revoked; determining that the storage apparatus has been revoked if an IDentification (ID) for the storage certificate of the storage apparatus is found in the first revocation list; and exchanging, with the storage apparatus, the first revocation list stored in the host apparatus and a second revocation list stored in the storage apparatus. REJECTIONS Claims 18—41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Holtzman et al. (US 2008/0010685 Al; published Jan. 10, 2008) (“Holtzman”) and Lee et al. (US 2005/0210241 Al; published Sept. 22, 2005) (“Lee”). 2 Appeal 2015-008174 Application 13/676,745 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Holtzman and Lee teaches or suggests “exchanging, with the storage apparatus, the first revocation list stored in the host apparatus and a second revocation list stored in the storage apparatus,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 25, 28, and 33? ANALYSIS The Examiner relies on Lee to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Final Act. 6, citing Lee 1201; Ans. 11—12, citing Lee Tflf 24, 178, 179, 201. Appellant argues Lee does not teach or suggest exchanging the certificate revocation lists (“CRLs”) themselves (App. Br. 6—9); rather, Appellant contends Lee teaches exchanging information about CRLs. Reply Br. 3. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. Lee describes that: a device and a portable storage judge whose CRL more recently issued by exchanging information on the issued date of their respective CRL ... [or in another embodiment] a device and a portable storage may exchange CRL version information and compare its own CRL version with that of its counterpart, thereby judging whose CRL more recently issued. Lee 1201. In other words, Lee describes exchanging information about the CRLs (issue date or version information), rather than exchanging the CRL themselves, as required by the claim. We disagree with the Examiner that such disclosure teaches or suggests the claimed limitation under the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of Appellant’s Specification. See Ans. 11. 3 Appeal 2015-008174 Application 13/676,745 Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Holtzman and Lee teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 18, 25, 28, and 33. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 19-24, 26, 27, 29—32, and 34—41. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18-41 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation