Fastly, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 6, 2021

2019004742 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 6, 2021)

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