Ex Parte Rustagi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 8, 201611400157 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 111400,157 16378 7590 EGL/Broadcom P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 0410612006 Viresh Rustagi 02/09/2016 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. 14528.00296 1832 EXAMINER TRAN, TONGOC ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/09/2016 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 VIRESH RUSTAGI, CHRISTOPHER WILSON, and CHRISTOPHER BOROSS Appeal2014-004513 Application 11/400, 157 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, LARRY J. HUME, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-31, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Broadcom Corporation as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-004513 Application 11/400, 157 THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to methods and systems for processing data on a single mobile multimedia processor chip integrated within a mobile devices utilizing a secure key received from an off-chip device. Spec. i-f 22. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: A method for processing data, the method comprising: receiving within a single mobile multimedia processor chip integrated within a mobile device, a secure key from an off-chip device integrated within said mobile device; decrypting within said single mobile multimedia processor chip, said secure key utilizing an on-chip key; storing said decrypted secure key within said single mobile multimedia processor chip; and decrypting within said single mobile multimedia processor chip, received encrypted data using said stored decrypted secure key. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cardoso Jr. US 2002/0184512 Al Dec. 5, 2002 ("Cardoso") Woodward US 2003/0026432 Al Feb. 6,2003 Shankar et al. US 2005/0268092 Al Dec. 1, 2005 ("Shankar") Kumar et al. US 7,937,595 Bl May 3, 2011 ("Kumar") 2 Appeal2014-004513 Application 11/400, 157 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4--7, 11, 14--17, 21, 24--27, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woodward in view of Kumar. Final Act. 2-5. Claims 2, 3, 12, 13, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woodward in view of Kumar and Cardoso. Final Act. 5---6. Claims 8-10, 18-20, and 28-30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Woodward in view of Kumar and Shankar. Final Act. 6. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants' contentions the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants. We disagree with Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-23, and 26-31. Claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, 26, 27, and29 Claim 1 recites "decrypting within said single mobile multimedia processor chip, said secure key utilizing an on-chip key." Claim App'x at App. Br. 14. Appellants argue "Kumar does not necessarily teach decrypting within said single mobile multimedia processor chip, [using] said secure key utilizing an on-chip key." App. Br. 6. Appellants further argue there is nothing that would have motivated a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Woodard and Kumar because Woodard does not involve the transmission of keys. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 5-7. 3 Appeal2014-004513 Application 11/400, 157 The Examiner finds Woodard teaches a single mobile multimedia processor chip and decrypting encrypted data on that chip using a stored secure key. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner further finds, although Woodard does not teach using an on-chip key to decrypt the secure key on the multimedia processing chip, this limitation is taught by Kumar. Final Act. 4. The Examiner concludes that "it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Woodward's teaching of utilizing shared key algorithm with Kumar's teaching by securing the decryption process with on-chip key within the mobile multimedia processor chip .... " Id. The Examiner also finds a person of skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the references in order to obtain the enhanced protection taught by Kumar. Ans. 9 We agree with the Examiner that Kumar teaches a system on a chip that uses a secure key to perform encryption and decryption. Kumar 3:7-16, 4:44--56, Fig. 1; Final Act. 4; Ans. 7-8. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments, which focuses on the references individually and not the combined teaching of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 ). We agree with the Examiner the claimed invention would have been 4 Appeal2014-004513 Application 11/400, 157 obvious in light of the combined teaching of the references. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 7-9. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner did not show a reason to combine the references. In KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), the Supreme Court held "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." 550 U.S. at 417. The Examiner finds, and we agree, a person of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the enhanced security teaching of Kumar with the single mobile multimedia processing chip taught by Woodard in order to take advantage of the enhanced security features. Ans. 9. That reasoning provides a "rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. According! y, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claims 11 and 21, which are argued on the same grounds (App. Br. 6-9), and the rejections of claims 6, 7, 16, 17, 26, and 27, which are not argued separately (App. Br. 9). With respect to dependent claims 2, 9, 12, 19, 22, and 29, Appellants merely contend, because the additional references used in the rejections of these claims (Cardoso, and Shankar) do not cure the deficiencies in claim 1, the claims are patentable for the same reasons. App. Br. 10 and 12. Because we determine there are no deficiencies associated with claim 1, we sustain the rejections of these claims. 5 Appeal2014-004513 Application 11/400, 157 Claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 24, and 25 Claim 4 recites the method further comprises "encrypting said stored decrypted secure key utilizing said on-chip key stored within said single mobile multimedia processor chip." Claim App'x at App. Br. 14. The Examiner finds Kumar teaches storing the encrypted key in order to enhance the protection of the key. Ans. 9-10; see also Ans. 10 (referring to the saved version of the originally encrypted key when discussing claim 5, which depends from claim 4). Appellants argue because the references do not encrypt the secure key after it has been decrypted, the Examiner erred in finding that the prior art teaches this claim limitation. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 8. It is improper to read a specific order of steps into method claims unless "as a matter of logic or grammar, they must be performed in the order written" or if the specification "directly or implicitly requires such a narrow construction." Altiris Inc. v. Symantec Corp., 318 F.3d 1363, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). In this case, the logic of claim 4 and its recitation of "encrypting said stored decrypted secure key" makes it clear the limitation of dependent claim 4 must be performed after the secure key has been decrypted. See Claims App'x (App. Br. 14). Because the Examiner relies on storing the encrypted key prior to it being decrypted, we agree with Appellants the Examiner erred in finding that Kumar teaches this limitation. Accordingly, we are constrained on this record to reverse the Examiner's rejection of claim 4, along with the rejections of claims 14 and 24, which are argued on the same ground, and dependent claims 5, 15, and 25. Cf In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) 6 Appeal2014-004513 Application 11/400, 157 ("[D]ependent claims are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious."). Claims 3, 13, and 23 Appellants argue, because the additional reference used in the rejection of these claims (Cardoso) does not cure the deficiencies in claim 1, the claims are patentable for the same reasons as discussed above. App. Br. 10. Because we previously determined there are no deficiencies associated with claim 1, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in finding Cardoso teaches the additional limitation of claim 3. Appellants argue Cardoso is directed to decrypting broadcast communications. App. Br. 11 (citing Cardoso i-f 35). As such, Appellants argue Cardoso "does not teach retrieving said stored on- chip key from said OTP [ (one-time programmable)] memory for decrypting within the single mobile multimedia processor chip, the secure key utilizing the on-chip key," as required by claim 3. App. Br. 10. The test for obviousness is not whether the claimed invention is expressly suggested in any one or all of the references, but whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Cardoso teaches retrieving a stored device key from one-time programmable memory for decryption. See Ans. 11-12. The Examiner further finds, and we agree, a person of ordinary kill in the art would have been motivated to implement the teachings of Cardoso with the combined teachings of Woodard and Kumar to take advantage of the properties of the OTP memory, and concludes the resulting 7 Appeal2014-004513 Application 11/400, 157 combination would have been obvious to a person with skill in the art. Final Act. 5. Because the Examiner's conclusions of obviousness is based on a combination of references, we do not find Appellants' arguments based on attacking a reference individually to be persuasive. See Merck, 800 F .2d at 1097. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 3, along with the rejections of claims 13 and 23, which are argued on the same grounds. Claims 8, 10, 18, 20, 28, and 30 Claim 8 recites the decoding of the encrypted data is performed "within a secure kernel in said single mobile multimedia processor chip." Claim App'x at App. Br. 15. Appellants argue, although Shankar mentions downloading a security kernel, Shankar only teaches downloading and authenticating the security kernel. App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 10-11. To the extent Shankar discusses data encryption, Paragraph 252 "only mentions that secret data is copied or provided into secure RAM 2245 as a result of processing of secure ROM Code 2240 or the secure kernel or both." Reply Br. 10. But, Appellants argue, there is no teaching of decoding any data within the secure kernel. Reply Br. 10-11. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Shankar teaches a number of security features associated with the security kernel. Ans. 13-14. The Examiner concludes, and we agree, a person skilled in the art would have used the secure kernel as taught by Shankar with the decoding and decryption process taught by Kumar and Woodard. Ans. 14. As the Supreme Court held in KSR, "if a technique has 8 Appeal2014-004513 Application 11/400, 157 been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill." KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. Appellants offer no evidence that the incorporation of the security kernel as taught by Shankar "was uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 8, along with the rejections of claims 18 and 28, which are argued on the same grounds. We similarly sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 10, 20 and 30, which are argued on substantially the same grounds. Compare App. Br. 12 (argument regarding claim 8), with App. Br. 13 (argument regarding claim 10). 2 Claim 31 Appellants argue there is no motivation to combine the teachings Kumar and Woodard because it would destroy the advantages associated with Woodard. App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 12. We find that argument unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed above for claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 31. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 6-13, 16-23, and 26-31. 2 We agree with and adopt the Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions regarding claim 10. Final Act. 6; Ans. 15. 9 Appeal2014-004513 Application 11/400, 157 For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 5, 14, 15, 24, and 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART kme 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation