Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 24, 2016

13422760 (P.T.A.B. May. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/422,760 03/16/2012
66547 7590 05/25/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Byung-Rae LEE
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.
678-3075 CON 7669
EXAMINER
GRACIA, GARY S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BYUNG-RAE LEE, SUNG-OH HWANG, and KOOK-HEUI LEE
Appeal2014-008626 1
Application 13/422,760
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH,
and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-8. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants' Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a method and system for
generating a Short Term Key Message (STKM), which a terminal utilizes to
decipher encrypted content/service broadcast thereto. Spec. 5:5-7. In
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-008626
Application 13/422,760
particular, upon receiving from a Broadcast Service Subscription
Management (BSM) a service encryption key (SEK) and a service
authentication key (SAK), a Broadcast Service Distribution/ Adaptation
(BSD/ A) generates a traffic encryption key (TEK), which the BSD/ A
encrypts using the SEK. Then, the BSD/ A inserts the TEK into a partially
created STKM, and performs a message authentication code (MAC)
processing thereon by performing the digital signature processing on the
TEK-inserted STKM with a SAK to thereby generate a complete STKM. Id.
16:20-27, Fig. 2.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for generating a Short Term Key Message (STKM) for
protection of a broadcast service being broadcasted to a terminal in a
broadcast system, the method comprising:
transmitting, by a Broadcast Service Subscription Management
(BSM) responsible for managing subscription information, key information
for encryption of the broadcast service to a Broadcast Service
Distribution/ Adaptation (BSD/ A) responsible for transmitting the broadcast
service;
generating, by the BSD/ A, a Traffic Encryption Key (TEK) for
deciphering the broadcast service in the terminal; and
performing, by the BSD/ A, Message Authentication Code (MAC)
processing on the STKM using the key information, thereby generating a
completed STKM,
2
Appeal2014-008626
Application 13/422,760
wherein the TEK is obtained using the completed STKM in the
terminal to which the broadcast service is transmitted from the
BSD/A.
Hawkes
Ovadia
Son
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2003/0039361 Al
US 2005/0289347 Al
US 2006/0206708 Al
Feb.27,2003
Dec. 29, 2005
Sept. 14, 2006
Service and Content Protection for Mobile Broadcast Services, Draft
Version 1.0, (OMA) Open Mobile Alliance 2006.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
non-statutory subject matter. 2
Claims 1-8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of OMA, Ovadia, Hawkes, and Son.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 3-7, and the Reply Brief, pages 1-5.3
2 Although the Examiner's statement of the rejection omits claims 5-8, the
corpus of the rejection discusses the cited claims as being directed to non-
statutory subject matter. Final Act. 4---6. We, therefore, treat the omission of
claims 5-8 from the statement of the rejection as harmless error.
3 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 11, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed July
29, 2014), and the Answer (mailed May 30, 2014) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2014-008626
Application 13/422,760
Non-statutory Subject Matter Rejection
Appellants have not presented any rebuttal arguments against this
rejection. In an after-final communication (Request for Reconsideration
dated November 4, 2013), Appellants indicate that during a post-final
interview with the Examiner and a Quality Assurance representative, the
Examiner indicated that the rejection would be withdrawn. However, in
none of the subsequent communications from the Examiner (Advisory
Action dated December 4, 2013, and the Examiner's Answer dated May 30,
2014) did the Examiner withdraw the rejection. Accordingly, the non-
statutory subject matter rejection of claims 1-8 entered in the Final
Rejection is still pending in this appeal. Because Appellants have failed to
rebut this rejection on the record before us, we summarily sustain this
rejection.
Obviousness Rejection
Appellants argue the proposed combination of OMA, Ovadia,
Hawkes, and Son does not teach or suggest a BSD/ A performing MAC
processing on the STKM using key information thereby generating a
completed STKM. App. Br. 4--7, Rely Br. 2--4. In particular, Appellants
argue Ovadia's disclosure of an authentication server (AS) performing
digital signature processing on subscriber station (SS) teaches performing
We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellants could have
made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
4
Appeal2014-008626
Application 13/422,760
MAC processing on the SS for authentication thereof, as opposed to
performing the MAC processing on an STKM to thereby protect a message
being broadcast to the SS. App. Br. 6, Reply Br. 3. This argument is
persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Ovadia discloses an AS, upon
receiving an access request message along with a public key, utilizes the
public key to perform a signature check on an SS. Ans. 8 (citing Ovadia
i-f 105). Upon authenticating the SS, the AS encrypts the public key and
sends it back to the SS in an Authorization Reply Message (ARM) including
the authentication key for extended authorization. Id. (citing Ovadia
i-fi-1108-112). We do not agree with the Examiner that Ovadia's disclosure
of performing the MAC processing on the SS teaches the MAC processing
on the STKM. Ans. 9. Even ifthe ARM could somehow be construed as
the STKL\rI, as proffered by the Examiner, Ovadia's ivIAC processing is not
performed thereon. Id. Rather, the ARM is generated subsequent to the
performance of the MAC processing on the subscriber device. We,
therefore, agree with Appellants that Ovadia' s disclosure of performing the
MAC processing on the subscriber device does not teach such performance
on the STKM, and thereby does not cure the noted deficiencies of OMA,
Hawkes, and Son. Because Appellants have shown at least one reversible
error in the Examiner's rejection, we need not reach Appellants' remaining
arguments. We, therefore, do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim
1, as well as the rejection of claims 2-8, which recite commensurate
limitations.
5
Appeal2014-008626
Application 13/422,760
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's non-statutory subject matter rejection of
claims 1-8. However, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1-8. Because we have affirmed at least one ground of rejection with
respect to each claim on appeal, the Examiner's decision is affirmed. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(l).
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 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6