Ex Parte Libin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 10, 2017

13324239 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 10, 2017)

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.
13/324,239 12/13/2011 Phil LIB IN CSM-113USCON1 4491
101221 7590 04/10/2017
Muirhead and Satumelli, LLC
200 Friberg Parkway, Suite 1001
Wes thorough, MA 01581
EXAMINER
VAUGHAN, MICHAEL R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2431
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/10/2017 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 PHIL LIBIN and DAVID ENGBERG
Appeal 2016-007485
Application 13/324,2391
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1—15, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Assa Abloy AB as the real party in interest. App. Br.
2.
Appeal 2016-007485
Application 13/324,239
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed “to a method and
apparatus for secure ID checking.”
Claim 7, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
7. A system for secure ID checking, comprising:
a database;
an access control device coupled to the database and
having a card reader device, wherein the access control device
receives attribute information of a user from the database, and
wherein at least a portion of the attribute information is
encrypted; and
a decryption device coupled to the access control device,
wherein the decryption device decrypts the encrypted attribute
information received from the database to generate clear text
attribute information using a decryption key, wherein the
decryption key is generated using one of: an asymmetric
encryption process and a symmetric encryption process applied
to information obtained by the card reader device from a card
presented by the user.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Rushmitch et al. US 2002/0159601 A1 Oct. 31, 2002
Dickson et al. US 2004/0182921 Al Sept. 23, 2004
Libin et al. US 2005/0055567 Al Mar. 10, 2005
REJECTIONS
Claims 7—11 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Libin and Bushmitch. Final Act. 4—6.
2
Appeal 2016-007485
Application 13/324,239
Claims 1—6 and 12—15 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lib in and Dickson. Final Act. 6—8.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 1—15, and
we incorporate herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 4—8), and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ arguments (Ans. 2—5). We incorporate
such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise
noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments
for emphasis as follows.
Appellants argue the cited references do not teach or suggest
“providing encrypted attribute information of a user and providing a
decryption key on a card presented by a user where the decryption key
decrypts the encrypted attribute information,” as required by claim 7.2 3App.
Br. 9—10. More specifically, Appellants argue Libin only “discloses
encrypting a random challenge to the user” and does not teach or suggest
“providing any encrypted attribute information as recited in the claims.” Id.
at 10. Appellants also contend “since Libin does not encrypt user attribute
information, there is not any motivation to generate any decryption keys.
2 We note Appellants do not recite verbatim the language recited in claim 7.
3
Appeal 2016-007485
Application 13/324,239
Thus, according to Appellants, the addition of the Bushmitch reference does
not cure the above-noted deficiencies of Libin.” Id.
The Examiner finds Libin Paragraph 91 teaches using an encrypted
communication to transmit a secret password. Final Act. 4 (citing Libin
191). The Examiner further finds “Bushmitch uses an encrypted version of
a user’s PIN to decrypt the user’s password” and that a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have combined that feature with Libin “to protect the
[secret password] when transmitting it where it is from the server to the door
or the smart card to the door.” Final Act. 5.
With regard to providing encrypted attribute information of a user,
Appellants’ do not address the specific basis for the Examiner’s finding—
Libin Paragraph 91—in the Appeal Brief. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that the Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that
Libin teaches encrypted communications including attribute information of a
user.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in relying in
Libin Paragraph 91. See Reply Br. 3—5. Because Appellants did not raise
that argument in the opening brief and good cause has not been shown why
it should be considered, we will not consider this argument. See 37 C.F.R.
§41.41(b)(2); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010)
(Informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to make arguments
that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal to rebut the
Examiner’s rejections, but were not.”).
Similarly, because the remainder of Appellants’ arguments are
premised on Libin not teaching encrypted providing encrypted attribute
information of a user, we are similarly not persuaded by those arguments.
4
Appeal 2016-007485
Application 13/324,239
Instead, we agree with the Examiner that Bushmitch teaches providing a
decryption key on a card presented by a user and that there was a reason to
combine the teachings of the references.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s first-stated rejection of
representative claim 7, along with the first-stated rejection of dependent
claims 8—11, which are not separately argued. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Appellants rely on substantially the same arguments with regard to the
second-stated rejection of claims 1—6 and 12—15. Compare App. Br. 9—10
(claims 7—11), with id. at 11—12 (claims 1-6 and 12—15). The only
difference in Appellants argument is replacing the secondary reference
Bushmitch—for which no arguments are presented—with Dickson.
Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above for claim 7, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—6 and 12—15.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—15.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5