Ex Parte van Roermund et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 19, 2017

13754729 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 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.
13/754,729 01/30/2013 Timo van Roermund 81422618US03 5053
65913 7590 05/23/2017
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXPB.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
REZA, MOHAMMAD W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2436
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
ip. department .u s @ nxp. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NXP B.V.
Appeal 2017-000950
Application 13/754,729
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOVAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2017-000950
Application 13/754,729
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1 and 3—18, which are all of the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “a configuration method for configuring
host devices in a control system.” (Spec. 1:7—8.) Claim 1, reproduced
below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal:
1. A configuration method for configuring a host device in a
control system, in particular a building control system,
wherein an authorized configuration device, which is
authorized to exchange confidential configuration data with a
radio frequency identification tag coupled to the host device,
exchanges said confidential configuration data with said radio
frequency identification tag,
wherein, after the confidential configuration data have been
exchanged and a corresponding configuration operation has been
performed, access to the confidential configuration data by an
unauthorized configuration device, which is not authorized to
exchange said confidential configuration data with said radio
frequency identification tag, is precluded by locking said radio
frequency identification tag, wherein said locking occurs by
encrypting the confidential configuration data,
wherein the confidential configuration data enable the host
device to join a network and/ or pair with other devices.
1 The named inventors are Timo Van Roermund, Ewout Brandsma, Maarten
Christiaan Pennings, and Aly Aamer Syed.
2
Appeal 2017-000950
Application 13/754,729
THE REFERENCES AND THE REJECTION
Claims 1 and 3—18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Culbert (US 2007/0054616 Al; March 8, 2007),
Soleimani et al. (US 2008/0001724 Al; January 3, 2008), and Cam Winget
et al. (US 2008/0204248 Al; August 28, 2008). (See Final Act. ^U10.)
APPELLANT’S CONTENTIONS
Appellant argues the rejections are in error because (a) “[njone of the
references teaches ‘wherein said locking occurs by encrypting the
confidential configuration data’” and (b) the “Examiner is applying
hindsight bias in arguing that a person having ordinary skill in the art would
apply all three in exactly the method as described in the claims.” (See App.
Br. 7, 10.)
ANALYSIS
Appellant claims a configuration method in which, after confidential
configuration data has been exchanged and a configuration operation
performed, unauthorized access to the configuration data is precluded by
“locking” a radio frequency identification tag, where the locking “occurs by
encrypting the confidential configuration data.” The Specification discloses
that “locking the RFID tag 102 may be implemented by encrypting the
confidential configuration data and overwriting the confidential
configuration data in the RFID tag 102 by the encrypted version of the same
parameters.” (Spec. 1 8:27—30.)
The Examiner finds “Soleimani discloses access to . . . confidential
configuration data by an unauthorized configuration device ... is precluded
3
Appeal 2017-000950
Application 13/754,729
by locking [a] radio frequency identification tag.” (Final Act. 5.) The
Examiner further finds that Cam Winget describes how locking may be
performed “by encrypting the message/data exchanged during configuration
requests/responses.” {Id. at 6; see, e.g., Cam Winget | 80 (“The information
in the tag will be protected with the ciphersuite specified during
configuration mode. A ciphersuite may either provide authentication and
encryption or just authentication only.”).)
Appellant’s argument that “[n]one of the references teaches ‘wherein
said locking occurs by encrypting the confidential configuration data’” is not
persuasive because the Examiner finds that Cam Winget teaches locking by
encryption, that finding is supported, as shown above, and Appellant fails to
explain why the finding is not correct. A bare assertion that “no locking is
occurring” is not sufficient to show error.
Appellant’s “hindsight” argument is unpersuasive because it fails to
address the Examiner’s stated reasons to combine (see Final Act. 6) and we
find the combination identified by the Examiner adequately supported by an
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
Because Appellant has not shown Examiner error, we sustain the
Section 103(a) rejections of claims 1 and 3—18.
4
Appeal 2017-000950
Application 13/754,729
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1 and 3—18 are affirmed.
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
5