Ex Parte UngerDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 201310970869 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ROBERT A. UNGER ____________ Appeal 2010-008733 Application 10/970,8691 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to systems and methods for effecting transmitter and receiver synchronization. The Examiner has rejected the claims as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 The real party in interest is Sony Corporation. Appeal 2010-008733 Application 10/970,869 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Nov. 25, 2009), the Answer (mailed Feb. 22, 2010), and the Reply Brief (filed Apr. 22, 2010). We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13-22 are appealed; claims 1, 8, 14, and 19 are independent; claims 6 and 12 are cancelled. (App. Br. 16-20). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below: 1. A method for effecting transmitter and receiver synchronization, said method comprising: reading an authentication key value that is calculated by said receiver that is to receive protected content from said transmitter; determining if there has been a change in said authentication key value that is calculated by said receiver since it was last read; determining if a counter associated with said transmitter has a zero value; initiating a re-authentication of said receiver if said counter associated with said transmitter has a non zero value and a change in said authentication key value was coincidentally detected, wherein said non zero value indicates a counter mismatch between said counter associated with said transmitter and a counter associated with said receiver when a change in said authentication key value is coincidentally detected. The claims are rejected as follows: Appeal 2010-008733 Application 10/970,869 3 1. Claims 1-5 and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Khamharn (US 5,767,784, Jun. 16, 1998) and Frutiger (US 4,071,693, Jan. 31, 1978). (Ans. 3-7). 2. Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Khamharn, Frutiger, and Lyle (US 7,242,766 B1, filed Nov. 21, 2001). (Ans. 7-8). 3. Claims 14-16 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Khamharn and Mizikovsky (US 6,697,490 B1, filed Oct. 19, 1999). (Ans. 8-10). 4. Claims 17, 18, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Khamharn, Mizikovsky, and Lyle. (Ans. 10-12). Claim Groupings Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). CLAIMS 1-5, 7-11, AND 13 CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1-5 and 8-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Khamharn and Frutiger. (Ans. 3-7). The Examiner has rejected claims 7 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Khamharn, Frutiger, and Lyle. (Ans. 7-8). Appellant contends that Khamharn in view of Frutiger does not teach or suggest a method for effecting transmitter and receiver synchronization that includes “initiating a re-authentication of said receiver” if a counter associated with the transmitter has a non zero value and a change in an Appeal 2010-008733 Application 10/970,869 4 authentication key value is coincidentally detected. (App. Br. 6). Appellant contends that Khamharn teaches authentication of a command or message, but does not teach authentication or re-authentication of the receiver. (id.). Appellant alleges that Khamharn discloses that his disclosed receiver may be authenticated and re-authenticated in a different process that involves the sending of a special message to the receiver (see col. 3, ll. 1-12) that does not in any way involve determining a non zero value in a counter in response to the detection of a change in an authentication key value. (App. Br. 6-7). Appellant alleges that Khamharn discloses at column 5, lines 38- 53, that the last value of various data stored at the receiver is used to authenticate an incoming message; however, no process is disclosed that detects if there has been a change in any of this information as a part of a receiver re-authentication process. (App. Br. 7). The Examiner answers that Frutiger discloses that when it is determined that the counter states are not the same, the receiver end key generator is stepped forward until the difference between the counter states is again zero (col. 2, ll. 37-40). Frutiger also discloses that a new key bit (i.e. key is changed) is used for every new bit of enciphering or deciphering (col. 1, ll. 25-27). Therefore, when the counters are detected to not be the same, there will also be a new key bit. It is noted that the Examiner has interpreted “coincidentally detected” to mean also detected at the same time. (Ans. 12-13). Appellant replies that nothing in the passage cited by the Examiner has anything to do with detecting if a counter associated with a transmitter has a non zero value or if an authentication key value of the receiver is changed. (Reply 2). Appellant further contends that detecting a difference in Appeal 2010-008733 Application 10/970,869 5 counter states is not the same as detecting a non zero value of a counter and that generating a new key when counter states are detected as being different is not the same as detecting a change in an authentication key value. (Reply 2). The issue with respect to this rejection is whether the prior art determines whether the transmitter associated counter has a non zero value. ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “initiating a re-authentication of said receiver if said counter associated with said transmitter has a non zero value and a change in said authentication key value was coincidentally detected,” and claim 8 recites “an authentication initiator for initiating a re-authentication if said counter of said transmitter has a non zero value and said key value calculated by said receiver has coincidentally changed.” Appellant is persuasive that stepping the receiver end key generator forward until the difference between the counter states is again zero, as the Examiner finds that Frutiger teaches, is not the same as determining whether a counter has a non zero value. Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and claim 13 depends from claim 8. Appellant is persuasive that Lyle similarly does not determine whether the transmitter associated counter has a non zero value, as discussed above. (Reply 5). In view of the foregoing, we find that the combination of Khamharn, Frutiger, and Lyle fails to teach all the elements of the claimed invention. We decline to sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13. Appeal 2010-008733 Application 10/970,869 6 CLAIMS 14-16 and 19-21 CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS The Examiner has rejected claims 14-16 and 19-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Khamharn and Mizikovsky. (Ans. 8-10). Appellant contends that the limitations of claims 14 and 19 are very similar to the limitations recited in claims 1 and 8 discussed above. (App. Br. 11; Reply 5). Appellant advances similar contentions respecting independent claims 14 and 19. However, claims 14 and 19 are not commensurate in scope with independent claims 1 and 8. Unlike claims 1 and 8, which relate to non zero values in a transmitter-counter, claims 14 and 19 determine whether said transmitter-counter has a zero value. Figure 9 of Khamharn clearly depicts a determination of a counter zero value. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claims 14-16 and 19-21. We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CLAIMS 17, 18, AND 22 CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS The Examiner has rejected claims 17, 18, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Khamharn, Mizikovsky, and Lyle. (Ans. 10-12). Appellant contends that claims 17, 18, and 22 are allowable in view of their dependence on claims 14 and 19. Appellant further contends that claims 17, 18, and 22 are allowable in view of further recited limitations. (App. Br. 13-14). Appellant contends that Lyle discloses that an external agent supplies keys to both a transmitter and a receiver, whereas the claims Appeal 2010-008733 Application 10/970,869 7 recite that an authentication key is computed by the receiver and not supplied by an external agent. (App. Br. 13). Citing column 3, lines 55-59, the Examiner finds that Lyle discloses that each of the transmitter and receiver uses the shared secret value, the session value, and the repeater bit to calculate a session key for use during a second part of the authentication exchange (Ans. 18). Therefore, the Examiner further finds, Lyle discloses that the keys used by the transmitter and receiver are calculated by each of the transmitter and receiver themselves. Id. Appellant does not explain why Lyle’s column 3, lines 55- 59 does not support the Examiner’s findings. Because we find that the Examiner’s findings have a rational underpinning, we conclude that Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive and we will therefore sustain the rejection of claims 17, 18, and 22. SUMMARY We affirm the rejection of claims 14-22. We reverse the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-11, and 13. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation