Ex Parte Kolluru

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 9, 2014

12202799 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RAJU VENKATA KOLLURU
____________________

Appeal 2012-004904
Application 12/202,799
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: JOHN A. EVANS, JOHN G. NEW, and JON M. JURGOVAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Office
Action rejecting claims 1–10, 12–27, 29–35, and 37–38. Claims 11, 28, and
36 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2

1 The real party in interest is the assignee eBay Inc. (Appeal Br. 2).
2 Our Decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed September 22, 2011
(“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed January 5, 2012 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s
Answer mailed December 2, 2011 (“Ans.”); and original Specification filed
September 2, 2008 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-004904
Application 12/202,799
2

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant’s patent application is directed to a security asset
management system (Spec. ¶ 12). As described in Appellant’s
Specification, security assets include encryption keys, digital certificates,
digitally-signed documents, passphrases, or passwords (Spec. ¶¶ 12, 17). In
the process of managing security assets, a server that is providing security
assets to another server automatically “rotates” the security assets (Spec. ¶
18). As examples of rotating security assets, the Specification mentions
changing between different types of security assets, or replacing the same
type of security assets (Id.).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A computerized method comprising:
connecting a first server to a second server that is adapted to
manage security assets;
detecting that the first server is in need of a security asset; and
using the second server to provide the needed security asset to the
first server, wherein using the second server to provide the needed
security asset to the first server includes automatically rotating
between the security assets that the second server manages.3

3 The claim language shown in emphasis is what is in dispute between the
Appellant and the Examiner.

Appeal 2012-004904
Application 12/202,799
3

REJECTION
The Examiner made the following rejection:
Claims 1–10, 12–27, 29–35, and 37–38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) based on US 6,792,534 B2 issued September 14, 2004 to
Medvinsky (hereinafter “Medvinsky”).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner found that Medvinsky discloses the disputed limitation
of claim 1 concerning the rotation of security assets. In particular, the
Examiner cited to a passage of Medvinsky stating:
In one embodiment, a second server receives a first half of media
stream keys from a first server. The second server uses a Kerberos-
based Application Request and tickets to communicate the second half
of the media stream keys to the first server. Using this approach, the
exposure of the media stream keys is reduced to only the first and
second servers.

In one embodiment the invention provides a method for exchanging
keys between first and second servers, wherein a communication path
between the first and second servers includes one or more
intermediary transfer devices.

Medvinsky, col. 2, ll. 1–10.

Medvinsky thus discloses exchanging security keys between two servers,
which reasonably could be interpreted as replacing the same type of security
assets, i.e., encryption keys, used by the servers. According to Appellant’s
Specification, replacement of security assets is described as one example of
“‘rotating’ security assets” (Spec. ¶ 18). Therefore, we agree with the
Appeal 2012-004904
Application 12/202,799
4
Examiner that the recited limitation reads on the disclosure of Medvinsky.
Therefore, the Examiner properly rejected the claim.
Appellant argues that exchanging keys between servers is not the
same as one server rotating keys before they are sent to another server
(Reply Br. 3–4). However, claim 1 does not recite that security assets are
rotated at one server before their transmission to another server, so the
distinction argued is not recited in the claim.4 Therefore, we are not
persuaded of any error on the part of the Examiner in making this rejection.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claim 1. Because no separate
arguments were presented for its dependent claims 2–10 and 12–15, our
decision concerning claim 1 applies to these claims as well.5
Independent claims 16 and 33 were argued together with claim 1 so
our decision applies to these claims as well as their respective dependent
claims 17–27, 29–32, and 34, 35, 37, and 38.6
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–10, 12–
27, 29–35, and 37–38 is 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)(1)(iv) (2009).

AFFIRMED

4 See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (explaining that an
applicant seeking a narrower claim construction must either show why the
broader construction is unreasonable or amend the claim to expressly state
the scope intended).
5 In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d
989, 991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
6 Id.; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013).
Appeal 2012-004904
Application 12/202,799
5

lv