Fastly, Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 6, 20212019004742 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 15/642,617 07/06/2017 Tyler B. McMullen 683.0029c2 5939 76444 7590 01/06/2021 Setter Roche LLP 1860 Blake Street Suite 100 Denver, CO 80202 EXAMINER ANDERSON, MICHAEL D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2432 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/06/2021 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): uspto@setterroche.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TYLER B. MCMULLEN and ARTUR BERGMAN Appeal 2019-004742 Application 15/642,617 Technology Center 2400 Before BETH Z. SHAW, SCOTT B. HOWARD, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20. See Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the Assignee of the present application, Fastly, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-004742 Application 15/642,617 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an encrypted purging of data from content node storage. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, with disputed limitations in italics: 1 A method of operating a computing system that stores data objects, the method comprising: receiving a purge request to erase one or more of the data objects, wherein each of the data objects is encrypted using an encryption key unique to the data object, and wherein each of the encryption keys comprises a plurality of portions; in response to the purge request and for each data object of the one or more data objects, identifying an encryption key associated with the data object; identifying a type of purge request associated with the purge request; and erasing a portion of the plurality of portions of the encryption key for each of the one or more data objects based on the type of purge request. REFERENCE The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Sherman US 7,111,057 B1 Sept. 19, 2006 Li US 9,165,158 B2 Oct. 20, 2015 REJECTION Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Li and Sherman. Final Act. 6. In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 1, 9, and 18 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting, in light of the Terminal Disclaimer filed by Appellant. Ans. 3. Appeal 2019-004742 Application 15/642,617 3 OPINION Appellant argues that Li and Sherman fail to teach or suggest “erasing a portion of the plurality of portions of the encryption key for each of the one or more data objects based on the type of purge request,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues Li teaches attempting to delete all the portions of the encryption key. Id. Appellant also argues that Sherman does not teach deleting only a portion of an encryption key, but rather teaches deleting batch requests. Id. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Li teaches encryption key fragments corresponding to an identifier. Ans. 14–15 (citing Li, Fig. 5); Final Act. 6 (citing Li, 2:50–54). Li teaches “after the requests to store the encryption key fragments have been transmitted to the different data centers, requests to delete encryption key fragments corresponding to the identifier associated with the data object may be transmitted to the different data centers.” Li, 2:50–54. Thus, Li teaches receiving a request to delete encryption key fragments corresponding to an identifier. Final Act. 6 (citing Li, 2:50–54). Sherman teaches a “content delivery network [that] is enhanced to enable the content provider customers and CDN administrators the ability to evict or ‘purge’ content from all or some of the CDN 65 content servers efficiently and reliably.” Sherman, 3:60–66. As the Examiner explains, and we agree, Sherman teaches “a method for purging content from a content delivery network in which all content is encrypted and CON content servers poll the staging servers to determine whether an aggregate purge request exists.” Ans. 13. “If so, the CON content servers obtain the aggregate purge request and process the request to remove the identified content files from their local storage.” Id. Appeal 2019-004742 Application 15/642,617 4 The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Li's encryption key management distribution with Sherman’s method for purging content from a content delivery network in which all content is encrypted and CON content servers poll the staging servers to determine whether an aggregate purge request exists and where the CON content servers obtain the aggregate purge request and process the request to remove the identified content files from their local storage in order to provide additional security as suggested by Sherman. Final Act. 7. Appellant has not adequately shown error in the Examiner’s combination error in the Examiner’s proposed combination. First, Appellants’ arguments regarding Sherman’s individual shortcomings are unavailing, for the Examiner does not rely solely on Sherman for teaching deleting only a portion of an encryption key, but rather the cited prior art, Li and Sherman, collectively. See Final Act. 6–7. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments do not show nonobviousness where, as here, the rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. We also find unavailing Appellants’ contention that erasing a portion of the encryption key, as taught by the combination of Sherman and Li, is not “based on” the “type of purge request.” Reply Br. 2. Appellant provides insufficient evidence proving that the Specification or claims limit “based on” or “type of purge request” in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by the combination of Li and Sherman’s teachings of erasing an encryption key fragment. Li clearly teaches that requests to delete encryption key fragments corresponding to the identifier Appeal 2019-004742 Application 15/642,617 5 associated with the data object may be transmitted to different data centers. Li, 2:50–54. Appellant also argues: [T]here must be a portion that would be erased in the case of one type of purge request, and would not be erased in the case of another type of purge request. This ‘portion’ could be interpreted to mean ‘only a portion’ or ‘the entirety.’ So, Li and Sherman, alone or in combination, must teach either A) erasing only a portion ... based on the type of purge request, or B) erasing the entirety ... based on the type of purge request. Appeal Br. 7. Regardless of the general contentions and imputed intended meanings articulated by Appellant in the Appeal Brief, “[i]t is the claims that measure the invention.” See SRI Int’l v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. of Am., 775 F.2d 1107, 1121 (Fed. Cir. 1985) (en banc) (citations omitted). The claims do not recite “another type of purge request.” Because Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claims, they are unpersuasive. Moreover, it is well settled that “a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a secondary reference’s features can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. And here, the Examiner’s proposed combination uses prior art elements of Li and Sherman predictably according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Therefore, the Appeal 2019-004742 Application 15/642,617 6 Examiner’s proposed combination of Li and Sherman is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of claims 2–20, which are not argued separately with particularity. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejection is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–20 103 Li, Sherman 1–20 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation