Intermedia.net, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 1, 2021

2020000433 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 1, 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.
14/271,918 05/07/2014 Leonid Antonenkov 3626.001US3 8922
21186 7590 07/01/2021
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER, P.A.
P.O. BOX 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
EXAMINER
JONES, WILLIAM B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2021 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):
SLW@blackhillsip.com
uspto@slwip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LEONID ANTONENKOV, SERGEY ROMANOVSKIY,
NIKITA URALTSEV, and ALEXANDER PROKOFIEV

Appeal 2020-000433
Application 14/271,918
Technology Center 2400

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE1
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, all of which are currently
pending in this application. Appeal Br. 1, Claims App.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 We refer to the Specification, filed May 7, 2014 (“Spec.”); Non-Final
Office Action, mailed Dec. 4, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
June 4, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Aug. 20, 2019
(“Ans.”), and Reply Brief, filed Oct. 18, 2019 (“Reply Br.”).
2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “Applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Intermedia.net, Inc. Appeal Br. 2. This appeal relates to Appeal No. 2018-
00157, decided Aug. 27, 2018, in which an earlier panel of the Board
reversed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20. Dec. 6.
Appeal 2020-000433
Application 14/271,918
2
II. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claimed subject matter relates to client-
side encryption in a cloud storage environment wherein each organization
has its own encryption key such that no data is at risk if the server is
cracked. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 25. Figure 5, reproduced below, is useful for
understanding the claimed subject matter:

Figure 5 illustrates client (502) encrypting data using key (504) distributed
by key management service (KMS 506) prior to uploading encrypted file to
storage service (510) via secure channel (508), and storage service (510)
storing the encrypted data in storage (512) via secure channel (514). Id. ¶¶ 8,
26. KMS (506) may be an external server for managing and distributing keys
to organizations of the cloud-based service. Id.
Appeal 2020-000433
Application 14/271,918
3
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of encrypting files at a client device in a cloud-
based file system, comprising:
obtaining, by the client device, a first key from a key
management service, the first key having been created by the
key management service and uniquely corresponding to an
organization to which a user of the client device belongs;
encrypting, at the client device, a first file using the first
key; and
transmitting the encrypted first file from the client device
to a cloud-based server via a secure channel, for storage, as
encrypted on the client device, in a storage device shared
among multiple organizations, the storage device containing
one or more files encrypted at clients using keys different than
the first key.

Appeal Br. 12 (emphasis added).

III. REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence.3
Name Reference Date
Brown US 2008/0310633 A1 Dec. 18, 2008
Persaud US 2013/0042106 A1 Feb. 14, 2013

IV. REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatenable over the combined teachings of Brown and Persaud. Non-Final
Act. 3–8.

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-000433
Application 14/271,918
4
IV. ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant’s arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 7–11 and the Reply Brief, pages 2–8.4 We are not
persuaded by Appellant’s contentions.
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1–20 as
obvious over the combination of Brown and Persaud. Appeal Br. 8–11;
Reply Br. 3–9. In particular, Appellant argues that Brown does not teach a
client device obtaining from a KMS a “first key… uniquely corresponding to
an organization to which a user of the client device belongs,” as recited in
claim 1. Appeal Br. 8–9. According to Appellant, Brown’s keys uniquely
correspond to individual users, not to an organization to which a user of the
client device belongs. Id. (citing Brown ¶¶ 46, 62). Appellant reiterates that
because an organization is a distinct entity from the users thereof, the
Examiner’s interpretation of a key assigned to an organization as the key
being assigned to users of the organization is unreasonable. Reply Br. 3–6.
Appellant’s arguments are not persuasive.
As an initial matter, we note that Appellant’s Specification states the
following:
Each organization may have a single key created especially for it, and
unique to that organization. In some example embodiments, an
organization may have more than one key to allow for even greater
security (e.g., the quarantining of sensitive information within the
organization, so a hacker obtaining or cracking a key from one
division of the organization cannot view or modify information
from another division of the organization). If a key is compromised,
then that would only affect the one organization - other organizations

4 We have considered in this Decision only those arguments Appellant
actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments not made are forfeited. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2017).
Appeal 2020-000433
Application 14/271,918
5
that share the storage 512 would not have their own files at risk. In an
example embodiment, the storage service 510 has no access to the key
management service 506 and vice versa, so if one system is cracked,
the data of other organizations cannot be decrypted.

Spec. ¶ 27.
Although the cited portion of the Specification discusses examples
wherein an organization may have one or more keys uniquely associated
with it, it does not preclude users within such organization from being
assigned those keys as well. As such, we broadly, but reasonably construe a
“first key… uniquely corresponding to an organization to which a user of the
client device belongs” consistent with the Specification to mean a key
uniquely associated to an organization, as well as to users belonging
thereto.5
As correctly noted by the Examiner, and undisputed by Appellant,
Brown discloses an enterprise server generating an encryption key uniquely
associated with an enterprise user to encrypt a message therewith. Ans. 6
(citing Brown ¶¶ 46, 62). We agree with the Examiner that because the users
belong to the organization, an encryption key uniquely assigned to the users
thereof is uniquely assigned to the organization as well. Id. Because both the
claimed subject matter and Brown generate an encryption key uniquely
associated with an enterprise or a user thereof, we agree with the Examiner

5 During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation when reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also In re Smith
Int'l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382–83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (noting that such
interpretation is one “that corresponds with what and how the inventor
describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is
‘consistent with the specification’”).
Appeal 2020-000433
Application 14/271,918
6
that Brown teaches or at least suggests the disputed claim limitation
consistent with our claim construction above. Id. Accordingly, we sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejections of claims 2–20, Appellant does not present
separate patentability arguments or reiterates substantially the same
arguments as those discussed above for the patentability of claim 1. As such,
claims 2–20 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
V. CONCLUSION
On this record, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20.

VI. DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103 Brown, Persaud 1–20
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED