null

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 26, 2019

15042318 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2019)

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.
15/042,318 02/12/2016 Marno Herman Josephus van der Maas 81694951US01 1112
65913 7590 11/26/2019
Intellectual Property and Licensing
NXP B.V.
411 East Plumeria Drive, MS41
SAN JOSE, CA 95134
EXAMINER
ROCHE, JOHN B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2184
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/26/2019 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.us@nxp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARNO HERMAN JOSEPHUS VAN DER MAAS
____________________

Appeal 2019-001349
Application 15/042,318
Technology Center 2100
____________________

BEFORE JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
STEPHEN E. BELISLE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Throughout this Decision, we use the word “Appellant” to refer to
“applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2017). Appellant fails to identify
the real party in interest in the Appeal Brief. Although in the absence of a
statement identifying the real party in interest the Board may assume the
named inventor is the real party in interest (see 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)), a
review of the assignment record for the instant application indicates NXP
B.V. is the real party in interest. See Assignment Reel/Frame 037723/0106,
recorded February 12, 2016.
Appeal 2019-001349
Application 15/042,318

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention generally relates to
providing network security for in-vehicle networks that use the Controller
Area Network (CAN) bus protocol. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 4. According to the
Specification, a CAN device may comprise a controller, transmitter, and
receiver. Spec. ¶ 4. In a disclosed embodiment, the CAN device may
further comprise a security module coupled to the receiver. Spec. ¶ 4. “The
security module is configured to receive an incoming CAN message, retrieve
an identifier from the incoming CAN message, search the identifier table for
the identifier[,] and alter the incoming message based on a result of the
search.” Spec. ¶ 4. In some embodiments, if the identifier included with the
incoming CAN message matches an entry in the identifier table, the security
module may forward the message without altering the incoming CAN
message. Spec. ¶ 5.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics:
1. A Controller Area Network (CAN) device, comprising:
a CAN controller;
a transceiver coupled to the CAN controller, wherein the
transceiver includes a transmitter and a receiver coupled to a
CAN bus interface; and
a security module coupled to the receiver, wherein the
security module includes an identifier table and a receiver
controller, wherein the security module is configured to receive
an incoming CAN message, retrieve an identifier from the
incoming CAN message, and search the identifier table for the
identifier, wherein if the identifier is not found in the identifier
table, the incoming CAN message is modified and the modified
incoming CAN message is sent to the receiver controller, and if
Appeal 2019-001349
Application 15/042,318

3
the identifier is found in the identifier table, the incoming CAN
message is sent to the receiver controller.

The Examiner’s Rejections
1. Claims 1–3, 5–11, 13–18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Litichever et al. (US
2015/0020152 A1; Jan. 15, 2015) (“Litichever”); Hartwich et al. (US
2011/0125855 A1; May 26, 2011) (“Hartwich”); and Paul (US 5,999,932;
Dec. 7, 1999). Final Act. 3–9.
2. Claims 4, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Litichever, Hartwich, Paul, and Thilenius et al. (US
2015/0135254 A1; May 14, 2015) (“Thilenius”). Final Act. 10–11.

ANALYSIS2
Regarding independent claims 1, 9, and 16, inter alia, the Examiner
relies on the combined teachings of Litichever, Hartwich, and Paul. See
Final Act. 4–6. Appellant disputes the Examiner’s rejection, asserting the
Examiner incorrectly finds that Litichever’s “rules” teach the claimed
“identifier[s].” Appeal Br. 4–6. In particular, Appellant argues Litichever
describes a “firewall” wherein rules are applied based on message properties
and will either deny or allow the message to go through. Appeal Br. 4–5. In
contrast to the claimed identifiers, Appellant argues Litichever’s rules are

2 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Supplemental Appeal
Brief, filed July 3, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”); the Initial Appeal Brief, filed
June 20, 2018 (“Initial Appeal. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed November 30,
2018 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 18, 2018
(“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action, mailed February 27, 2018 (“Final
Act.”), from which this Appeal is taken.
Appeal 2019-001349
Application 15/042,318

4
not included in the message itself. Appeal Br. 5. Moreover, Appellant
argues Litichever does not disclose maintaining a table of identifiers.
Appeal Br. 5. In addition, Appellant asserts Litichever discloses that during
the processing of a message, if a rule is found, then the message may be
modified, whereas the claims (e.g., claim 1) recite that if an identifier is
found in the identifier table, the message is forwarded in an unmodified
format. Appeal Br. 6.
As discussed below, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive
of Examiner error.
Litichever generally relates to an in-vehicle security system “by
selectively intervening in the communications path in order to prevent the
arrival of malicious messages at ECUs [(i.e., CAN devices)].” Litichever,
Abstract, ¶¶ 1, 44–48. “The security system includes a filter which prevents
illegal messages sent by any system or device communicating over a vehicle
communications bus from reaching their destination.” Litichever, Abstract.
Further, Litichever describes the Controller Area Network (CAN) is the
standard communication bus on which ECUs (Electronic Control Units)
communicate. Litichever ¶ 5. Litichever also describes a filter element is
“an element with two interface that upon receiving a message either discards
it, changes it or passes it according to various conditions e.g.[,] message ID
value.” Litichever ¶ 6 (emphasis added). More particularly, Litichever
describes a security system comprising one or more (i) message receiving
units for receiving messages from the communications bus (i.e., CAN bus);
(ii) message classification units for classifying the received messages
according to at least one message property; (iii) message analyzer units for
analyzing a message according to its classification and determine whether to
Appeal 2019-001349
Application 15/042,318

5
transfer the message to a transmission unit; and (iv) message transmission
units for sending the message to the appropriate destination. Litichever
¶¶ 50–54, 61. Litichever discloses the message property (used by the
message classification unit) may comprise a message ID. Litichever ¶ 60.
In a disclosed embodiment, Litichever describes a filter element as
being a combination of the message classification and message analyzer
units. Litichever ¶ 166. Litichever describes a message being received and
the message classification unit selects a rule from a rules list according to the
message properties (e.g., a message ID). Litichever ¶ 166. The message is
sent to the appropriate (i.e., selected) rule of the message analyzer unit “and
decides whether the message should be allowed or not, or should be
modified.” Litichever ¶ 166.
Thus, as relied on by the Examiner, Litichever teaches retrieving an
identifier from an incoming CAN message (i.e., the message ID) and using
the identifier to select an appropriate rule from a rules list (i.e., the claimed
identifier table) to further analyze/process the message. See Final Act. 4–5;
see also Litichever ¶¶ 60, 166. Moreover, based upon the selected rule, the
message may be allowed without modification. See Litichever ¶ 166; see
also Ans. 10. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner’s findings
are consistent with a broad but reasonable interpretation, consistent with the
Specification, of the claimed identifier and identifier table.
Moreover, the Examiner relies on Hartwich to teach searching an
identifier table for an identifier (see Final Act. 5 (citing Hartwich ¶ 23,
Fig. 2)) and Paul to teach if an identifier is found in the identifier table, the
message is sent without modification (see Final Act. 5 (citing Paul, col. 8,
ll. 24–27, 55–57, col. 9, ll. 8–9, Fig. 4)). Appellant does not contest these
Appeal 2019-001349
Application 15/042,318

6
findings. In addition, the Examiner cumulatively finds Paul “more explicitly
show[s]” an identifier table with its inclusion list data. Ans. 10.
Appellant argues the ordinarily skilled artisan “would not regard
Paul’s ‘inclusion list data’ as equivalent to the claimed identifier data
because the claimed identifiers are retrieved from an incoming CAN
message while PAUL list has ‘identification data for identifying e-mail
desired by the user.’” Reply Br. 2. We disagree.
Paul generally relates to a system for eliminating unsolicited e-mails
by examining certain fields of an e-mail message and comparing the
contents of the fields with a user inclusion list. Paul, Abstract. Thus, if a
sender is identified from an appropriate field of the e-mail message, an
inclusion list for allowed senders is searched and if the identified sender is
listed in the inclusion list, the message may be sent to the user. See Paul,
Abstract, col. 8, ll. 24–27, 55–57, 61–64, Fig. 4. As the Examiner explains,
the inclusion list data corresponds to the claimed identifier table in that the
inclusion list is searched for a field entry (i.e., identifier) contained in the
received message “in order to determine how to treat a particular message.”
Ans. 9.
In addition, despite the Examiner’s sweeping statement that
“[w]hatever issues may exist pertaining to Litichever itself are arguably
remedied by the citation of Hartwich and Paul to cover whatever elements of
the claimed invention the Litichever reference may not necessarily explicitly
teach” (see Ans. 10), we find the Examiner has met the notice requirements
of Section 132(a) in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Final
Act. 3–11 (identifying specific portions of the references for teaching
particular limitations and articulating a reasoning for the proposed
Appeal 2019-001349
Application 15/042,318

7
combinations); see also 35 U.S.C. § 132; In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362
(Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding the USPTO carries its procedural burden when its
rejection satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 132 by notifying the
applicant of the reasons for rejection, “together with such information and
references as may be useful in judging of the propriety of continuing the
prosecution of [the] application”); but cf. Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574,
1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (Section 132 “is violated when a rejection is so
uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to
counter the grounds for rejection.”).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 of independent claims 1, 9, and 16. Additionally, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims 2, 3, 5–8, 10, 11,
13–15, 17, 18, and 20, which depend directly or indirectly therefrom and
were not argued separately. See Appeal Br. 6; see also 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). In addition, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 4, 12, and 19, which were not argued separately. See
Appeal Br. 6; see also 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2019-001349
Application 15/042,318

8
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 5–11,
13–18, 20
103 Litichever,
Hartwich, Paul
1–3, 5–11,
13–18, 20

4, 12, 19 103 Litichever,
Hartwich, Paul,
Thilenius
4, 12, 19
Overall
Outcome
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.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED