Ex Parte Patel

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2007

09854251 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
___________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
___________

Ex parte SARVER PATEL
___________

Appeal 2007-0246
Application 09/854,251
Technology Center 2100
___________

Decided: March 27, 2007
___________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOSEPH L. DIXON, and JAY P.
LUCAS, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, 16, and 19-21.

We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2007-0246
Application 09/854,251

BACKGROUND

Appellant’s invention relates to a message authentication system and
method using a single iteration of a keyed compression function when a
message fits within the input block. For larger messages, the method and
system additionally uses a nested hash function. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is
reproduced below.
1. A method of processing a message for authentication, said method
comprising:

determining whether said message fits within an input block of a
compression function;

performing a single iteration of the compression function using a key
and said message as inputs when said message fits within an input block of
said compression function and using a result from said compression function
without further iteration thereof to produce a message authentication code;
and

using a hash function nested within a keyed hash function to process
said message when said message does not fit within an input block of said
compression function and using a result from said keyed hash function to
produce a message authentication code. ,

PRIOR ART
The prior art reference of record relied upon by the Examiner in
rejecting the appealed claims is:
2
Appeal 2007-0246
Application 09/854,251

Bellare et al., “Keying Hash Functions for Message Authentication”,
Preliminary Version: Advances in Cryptology – Crypto 96 Proceedings,
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 1109, Springer-Verlag, (June
1996), pp. 1-19.

REJECTION
Claims 1-4, 7-11, 14, 16, and 19-21stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102
as being anticipated by Bellare.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the
Examiner and the Appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make
reference to the Examiner's Answer (mailed Jun. 14, 2006) for the reasoning
in support of the rejections, and to Appellant’s Brief (filed Mar. 20, 2006)
for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to Appellant’s Specification and claims, to the applied prior art
reference, and to the respective positions articulated by Appellant and the
Examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations
that follow.
35 U.S.C. § 102
A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference. Verdegaal Bros. Inc. v. Union Oil Co., 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The inquiry as to whether a reference
anticipates a claim must focus on what subject matter is encompassed by the
claim and what subject matter is described by the reference. As set forth by
3
Appeal 2007-0246
Application 09/854,251

the court in Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772, 218 USPQ
781, 789 (Fed. Cir. 1983), it is only necessary for the claims to “‘read on’
something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are
found in the reference, or ‘fully met’ by it.” While all elements of the
claimed invention must appear in a single reference, additional references
may be used to interpret the anticipating reference and to shed light on its
meaning, particularly to those skilled in the art at the relevant time. See
Studiengesellschaft Kohle v. Dart Indus., Inc., 726 F.2d 724, 726-727, 220
USPQ 841, 842-843 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
The Examiner maintains that Bellare teaches the claimed invention as
recited in independent claim 1. The Examiner has identified that various
pages of Bellare teach the recited limitations of independent claim 1 (Br. 3-4
and 6-7). We find that the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the claimed invention. Therefore, we look to Appellant’s
Brief to show error in this prima facie case.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in finding anticipation by
Bellare, but Appellant does not address the merits of the specific teachings
recited in Bellare. Rather, Appellant contends that the totality of the merits
of teachings of Bellare are encapsulated within Appellant’s discussions of
the NMAC and HMAC in the background of the instant Specification. We
cannot agree with Appellant, and we find that Appellant’s arguments to the
Appellant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA) do not address the merits of the
instant rejection under review based upon the teachings of Bellare.
We find that Appellant’s arguments to AAPA Figures 6-8 at page 5-7
of the Brief do not identify how the applied prior art reference to Bellare
does not teach the claimed invention. The Examiner identifies specific
4
Appeal 2007-0246
Application 09/854,251

sections and pages of Bellare at pages 6-8 of the Answer to further illustrate
the manner in which the prior art is applied. We find that Appellant does not
specifically address the merits of the instant rejection. Since we find that the
Examiner had met the initial burden thereby shifting the burden of
persuasion to Appellant, and Appellant did not clearly and specifically
address those identified teaching in the applied prior art, we will sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and those claims grouped therewith by
Appellant.
We find the same deficiency in the arguments presented by Appellant
with respect to independent claims 7 and 19, and we will sustain the
rejection of independent claims 7 and 19 and those claims grouped therewith
by Appellant. Since Appellant has not shown error in the prima facie case of
anticipation, we sustain the rejection of all claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
CONCLUSION
To summarize, we have sustained the rejection of claims 1-4, 7-11, 14,
16, and 19-21stand under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
5
Appeal 2007-0246
Application 09/854,251

AFFIRMED

JLD

ELD

Docket Administrator (Room 3C-512)
Lucent Technologies Inc.,
600 Mountain Avenue
P.O. Box 636
Murray Hill NJ 07974-0636
6