Ex Parte Kargl

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 5, 2016

12574384 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/574,384 10/06/2009
38881 7590
Infineon Technologies AG
c/o Schiff Hardin LLP
666 Fifth A venue
Suite 1700
NEW YORK, NY 10103
02/09/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Walter KARGL
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.
42792-0056 (I0046.0064) 8023
EXAMINER
OKEKE, IZUNNA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2497
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/09/2016 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):
lbrutman@schiffhardin.com
patents-NY@schiffhardin.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WALTER KARGL
Appeal2014-003240
Application 12/574,384
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over the combination of Braun (US 2009/0235073 Al; Sept. 17, 2009) and
Davis (US 2007/0034686 Al; Feb. 15, 2007).
Appeal2014-003240
Application 12/574,384
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends the combination of Davis and Braun does not
suggest data to be communicated being integrated as part of at least one of
the challenge and the enciphered response, as required by claim 1. App. Br.
4. Specifically, Appellant argues Davis merely discloses the response
includes data segments and does not suggest the data is integrated in an
enciphered response. Reply Br. 2. We are not persuaded by Appellant's
arguments.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in the
Examiner's Answer. We note the following primarily for emphasis. The
Examiner finds, and we agree, Davis discloses data being integrated as part
of the response and Braun teaches enciphered responses - Braun's reply is
encrypted (Braun i-f 82). Ans. 2; Final Act. 2-3; see Davis i-f 58, Braun i-f 82.
Thus, we agree with the Examiner the combination of Davis and Braun
teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we sustain the 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-25, which are not
separately argued.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
2