Ex Parte Zaverucha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 28, 2016

13464007 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016)

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.
29907-0067001 6919
EXAMINER
HENNING, MATTHEW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/464,007 05/04/2012
94149 7590 12/28/2016
Fish & Richardson P.C. (Blackberry)
P.O.Box 1022
Minneapolis, MN 55440
Gregory Marc Zaverucha
12/28/2016 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 GREGORY MARC ZAVERUCHA,
DAVID WILLIAM KRAVITZ, and
DANIEL RICHARD L. BROWN1
Appeal 2016-001510
Application 13/464,007
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
1 Appellants identify Certicom Corp., subsidiary of BlackBerry Limited,
the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-001510
Application 13/464,007
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 5—9, 11—19, 21—27, and 29-38. Claims 3, 4,
10, 20, and 28 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention is directed to implicitly certified digital
signatures. Spec. Title.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below:
1. A method of using an implicit certificate in a cryptography
system, the method comprising:
accessing an implicit certificate associated with an entity;
accessing a message for digital signature by the entity;
generating a hash value based on the implicit certificate;
generating a modified message by combining the message with
the hash value, wherein the combining comprises at least one of an
appending operation or a reversible transformation operation;
generating a digital signature based on the modified message;
and
sending the message and the digital signature to a recipient over
a data communication network.
2
Appeal 2016-001510
Application 13/464,007
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The following rejections made by the Examiner to the claims on
appeal and the prior art relied upon in the rejections made are:
Claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 11, 12, 1^N19, 21-23, 25-27, 29, 30, and 32-38
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Nader M.
Rabadi, Revised Self-Certified Implicit Certificate Scheme for Anonymous
Communications in Vehicular Networks, 2010 IEEE Vehicular Networking
Conference, Dec. 2010, at 286—292 (“Rabadi”). Final Act. 5—12.
Claims 8, 13, 24, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rabadi. Final Act. 12—13.
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
1. “[T]he cited passages in the Rabadi reference do not disclose
combining the message with a hash value,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 4 (emphasis omitted).
2. “[T]he the cited passages in the Rabadi reference do not disclose a
public key reconstruction value,” as recited in claim 5. App. Br. 7
(emphasis omitted).
3. “[T]he the cited passages in the Rabadi reference do not disclose
verifying the message based on the modified message,” as recited in
claim 14. App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted).2
2 We only address this contention, which is dispositive of the rejection of
claim 14. We do not address additional contentions raised by Appellants’
arguments with respect to claim 14.
3
Appeal 2016-001510
Application 13/464,007
ANALYSIS3
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. App. Br. 4—8; Reply Br. 1—2. We agree
with Appellants’ conclusions in connection with the rejection of claims 14—
19, 21—27, and 29—31. However, in connection with the remaining claims,
we are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions and adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—13), and as set forth by the Examiner in the
Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—
4). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below.
CLAIMS 1, 2, 6-9, 12, 13, AND 32-38
“Hash Value”
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Rabadi discloses, inter alia,
“generating a modified message by combining the message with the hash
value,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 2-4, 6. In particular, the Examiner
finds Rabadi, by disclosing a modified message m=M\\Ij\\ Uj\\W\\X\\K\\
Y || Sighi(y), also discloses combining a message M with W. Final Act. 3
(citing Rabadi 288). The Examiner further finds Rabadi’s W, defined by W
= ey(a- 1) Uj + e2 y (a— 1)C, is a function of e. Final Act. 3 (citing
Rabadi p. 288). The Examiner further finds Rabadi’s e, defined by e = //(//
|| Uj), is a function of hash function H. Final Act. 2 (citing Rabadi p. 288).
3 In this Opinion, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
June 22, 2014); Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed November 23,
2015); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed January 22, 2015); and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed on September 30, 2015).
4
Appeal 2016-001510
Application 13/464,007
The Examiner concludes Rabadi, by disclosing the modified message m,
also discloses combining message M with hash function H. Final Act. 4, 6.
Appellants assert “[cjombining a message with a function of a hash
value is distinct from combining a message with a hash value.” App. Br. 5
(emphasis added); see also Reply Br. 1. Appellants argue “IEitself is not a
hash value” but “[ijnstead. . . an elliptic curve point that is computed by
multiplying other elliptic curve points (If and Cj by factors that are
themselves based on the hash value e and other quantities (y and a— 1).”
App. Br. 5 (citing Rabadi p. 288). Appellants conclude, therefore, Rabadi
does not disclose combining message M with hash function H because
Rabadi discloses combining message M with W. App. Br. 5.
We are unpersuaded the Examiner erred. At the outset, we note
claim 1 is silent concerning what elements can or cannot constitute a hash
value. For example, claim 1 is silent as to whether a hash value precludes a
value (i.e., W) derived from another value (i.e., e) that is derived from a hash
function (i.e., H). Thus, Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive of
Examiner error because they are not commensurate with the scope of
claim 1. See In re Self 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not
appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Rabadi is directed to a self-certified implicit certificate for use in
vehicular communication networks. Rabadi Abstract. For each vehicle
group j arranged by a certificate authority (CA), the CA generates a public
key Uj and implicit certificate Ij. Rabadi 287 § III(A). The CA and vehicle
i both compute a value e = //(// || Uj) using a hash function H. Rabadi pp.
287—288, sec. Ill, subsec. A. When vehicle i broadcasts message M, vehicle
i computes value W= ey (a— 1) Uj + e2y (a— 1) C. Rabadi p.288, sec. Ill,
5
Appeal 2016-001510
Application 13/464,007
subsec. B. To generate signature Sig/fm) for broadcast, vehicle i prepares m
= M\\Ij || Uj\\ W\\X\\K\\Y\\Sighi(y). Rabadi p. 288, sec. Ill, subsec. B. As
the Examiner explains, by incorporating W and e into Rabadi’s modified
message m, modified message m is equivalent to and can be rewritten as M ||
Ij || Uj || H{Ij || Uj) y {a- 1) Uj + e2y (a- 1) C || A|| K\\ Y\\ Sighi(y). Final
Act. 4. Therefore, contrary to Appellants’ argument, we agree with the
Examiner Rabadi discloses generating modified message m by combining
the message M with the hash value //(// || Uj).
“Reversible Transformation Operation”
The Examiner further finds Rabadi discloses, inter alia, combining
the message M with the hash function H “comprises at least one of an
appending operation or a reversible transformation operation,” as recited in
claim 1. Final Act. 4, 6 (citing Rabadi p. 288).
Appellants argue, for the first time in the Reply Brief, Rabadi does not
disclose a reversible transformation operation. Reply Br. 2. In the absence
of a showing of good cause by Appellants, these arguments are untimely and
deemed waived. “Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not
raised in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
[EJxaminer’s [AJnswer, including any designated new ground of rejection,
will not be considered by the Board for purposes of the present appeal,
unless good cause is shown.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2012); see also
Ex parte Nakashima, 93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative)
(explaining that arguments and evidence not presented timely in the
principal brief, will not be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a
showing of good cause explaining why the argument could not have been
presented in the principal brief); see also Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d
6
Appeal 2016-001510
Application 13/464,007
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.”). Further,
Appellants provide no evidence or reasoning supporting an interpretation of
a reversible transformation operation or what is required of a reversible
transformation operation that would distinguish over the disclosure of
Rabadi. Instead, such contentions amount to no more than naked assertions
that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art and are,
therefore, unpersuasive of Examiner error. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv);
see also In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings that Rabadi’s message “m is created by
appending a number of values to the message M. One of those values
happens to be created by a reversible transformation operation involving the
hash of the implicit certificate.” Final Act. 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) and, for similar reasons, the rejection of
independent claims 9 and 32, which recite similar limitations and were not
argued separately. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 2, 6, 7, 12, and 33—38, which were not argued separately.
See App. Br. 4—5. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claims 8 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rabadi, these dependent claims also not argued
separately.
7
Appeal 2016-001510
Application 13/464,007
CLAIMS 5 AND 11
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the implicit
certificate includes a public key reconstruction value of the entity, and the
modified message is generated by combining the message with the public
key reconstruction value of the entity.” The Examiner finds Rabadi
discloses an implicit certificate {Ij || Uj). Ans. 4 (citing Rabadi p. 289,
sec. Ill, subsec. C). The Examiner further finds the implicit certificate Ij or
public key Uj of Rabadi discloses a public key reconstruction value “as both
are used in reconstruction of the public key.” Ans. 4.
Appellants argue “page 288 of Rabadi states that the
Uj value is a group public key, which is distinct from the public key
reconstruction value.” App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants further
argue implicit certificate Ij is not a public key reconstruction value.
Reply Br. 2.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. Appellants fail to
persuasively explain why Rabadi’s public key Uj fails to teach a public key
reconstruction value. For example, Appellants fail to provide sufficient
persuasive evidence or reasoning supporting an interpretation of a plain
meaning for example, by citing to a narrower definition of a “public key
reconstruction value” required by the Specification, or otherwise explain
why the Examiner’s interpretation is inconsistent with the Specification. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see also Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357. Thus, in the
absence of persuasive rebuttal, we agree that, under a broad but reasonable
interpretation of a “public key reconstruction value,” consistent with the
Specification, public key Uj of Rabadi discloses a “public key reconstruction
value,” as recited in claim 5.
8
Appeal 2016-001510
Application 13/464,007
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 and, for
similar reasons, the rejection of claim 11, which recites similar limitations
and was not argued separately. See App. Br. 9.
CLAIMS 14—19, 21-27, AND 29-31
We agree with Appellants the Examiner erred by finding Rabadi
discloses “verifying the message based on . . . the modified message,” as
recited in claim 14. App. Br. 6—7. In particular, we agree with Appellants’
assertion that Rabadi discloses validating a signature on the message m using
a Q value, but that Rabadi’s Q value is not a modified message generated
based on the message m as required by claim 14. App. Br. 6 n.10 (citing
Rabadi p. 289).
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. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, we find the Examiner failed to adequately
explain, nor are we able to ascertain, how Rabadi discloses verifying a
message based on a modified message, as claimed. In particular, the
Examiner does not explain, with sufficient evidence or argument, which
“parts of the received modified message ‘m’ are used in verifying the digital
signature of ‘m’,” or how the conclusion “verifying . . . the signature of the
message M' occurs. Ans. 4 (citing Rabadi sec. Ill, subsecs. C, D). We find
validating the digital signature on message m involves Q = eX+Y+W+ey
Uj + e2yC, but Q is not shown to involve validating a message based on a
modified message.
For the reasons discussed supra, and on the record before us, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 14 under 35
9
Appeal 2016-001510
Application 13/464,007
U.S.C. § 102(b). For similar reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), which recites a
similar limitation, or the rejection of dependent claims 15—19, 21—23, 26, 27,
29, and 30. Furthermore and for the same reasons, we do not sustain the
rejection of dependent claims 24 and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Rabadi.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1,2, 5—9, 11—13,
and 32—38
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 14—19, 21—27,
and 29-31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10