Ex Parte Anil

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

12995607 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2017)

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.
12/995,607 12/01/2010 Agiwal Anil 0202-0504 2093
68103 7590 09/05/2017
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, THUONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2449
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AGIWAL ANIL
Appeal 2017-005463
Application 12/995,607
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PER CURIAM.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1, 25—32, 36—39, 44—51, 55—61, and 66—73. Final
Rejection 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE and enter NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to encryption that includes “detecting
one or more security associations corresponding to data payloads in response
to receipt of the data payloads from multiple source connections” and
Appeal 2017-005463
Application 12/995,607
“encrypting] concatenated data payloads for each security association.”
Abstract. Claims 1, 32, 39, and 51 are independent.
Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for transmitting data in a wireless
communication system, the method comprising:
determining a plurality of payloads on multiple
connections associated with a same security association;
multiplexing the plurality of payloads associated with the
same security association; and
encrypting the multiplexed payload associated with the
security association together in a Medium Access Control
(MAC) Protocol Data Unit (PDU); and
transmitting a signal corresponding to the MAC PDU,
wherein the MAC PDU includes an integrity check value
(ICV), and
wherein the plurality of payloads on multiple connections
includes a first payload of a first connection and a second
payload of a second connection.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 25-32, 36, 37, 39, 44—51, 55, 56, 59, 61, and 66-731 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang (US
Patent Application Publication 2008/0285501 Al; published November 20,
2008), Legg (US Patent Application Publication 2013/0286986 Al;
published October 31, 2013), and Sood (US Patent Application Publication
2006/0288204 Al; published December 21, 2006). Final Rejection 2.
1 The heading of the rejection does not indicate claim 59 stands rejected (see
Final Rejection 2); however, a rejection of claim 59 is included in the body
of the rejection. See Final Rejection 9.
2
Appeal 2017-005463
Application 12/995,607
Claims 38, 57, 58, and 60 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Zhang, Legg, Sood, and Johnston (US
2009/0172394 Al; July 2, 2009). Final Rejection 10.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed July 6, 2016), the Appeal Brief (filed
October 25, 2016), the Answer (mailed December 16, 2016), and the Reply
Brief (filed February 14, 2017) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only arguments Appellant actually raised in the
Briefs.
Appellant argues Examiner error because “[interpreting a packet
number alone as a security association is not a reasonable interpretation.”
Reply Brief 2, citing Specification 175. Appellant further contends “the
reasonable assumption is that the plurality of PDUs are associated with a
same encryption key sequence field because they are associated with the
same single R-MAC header which contains the encryption key sequence
[‘EKS’] field,” thus indicating the claimed “security association” fails to
encompass the EKS. Reply Brief 4, citing Zhang H 65—66 and Fig. 10.
The Examiner finds “a same security association can include: packet
number (PN), encryption key sequence (EKS) and ICV which [is] associated
with the concatenated data payload” (Answer 4, citing Specification 175).
The Examiner further finds Zhang teaches “the packet number (PN) [is]
repeated in multiple MAC PDUs” and a “2 bit encryption key sequence
(EKS) field is also included in MAC PDUs.” Answer 4, citing Zhang
1161, 65-66.
3
Appeal 2017-005463
Application 12/995,607
We agree with Appellant that the claimed “security association”
requires more than a packet number, because “[t]he SA [security
association] is a set of security information shared between two data
communication points in the network.” Specification 144, emphasis added.
Appellant’s disclosure further states that ‘Ts]ecurity information comprising
the packet number (PN) and the integrity check value (ICV) are added to the
data payloads” (Specification 175, emphasis added), thus, both the packet
number and the integrity check value are reasonably needed to form the
“security information” and also the claimed “security association.”
We also agree with Appellant that it is unclear whether
(1) the EKS field appearing in Zhang’s “exemplary R-MAC header”
(Zhang 122, Figure 10) is common to all (original) payloads, and
thus part of a “same security association,” or
(2) the EKS field arises as the result of “encrypting the multiplexed
payload,” and thus not part of a “same security association” because it
was not previously associated with the (original) payloads.
See Reply Brief 4. Neither Zhang’s reference to the EKS field (see Zhang
11 65, 98), nor the Examiner’s findings related to an “encryption key” (see
Final Rejection 3, 5, 7, 12; Answer 4) appear to explain the origin of the
EKS field and its connection to a payload. Thus, we are constrained by the
record to reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections because we find the
combination of the references does not teach or suggest “a same security
association.”
NEW GROUNDS OF REJECTION
4
Appeal 2017-005463
Application 12/995,607
Pursuant to our authority under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), we enter new
grounds of rejection and separately reject claims 1, 25—32, 36—39, 44—51,
55—61, and 66—73 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
lacking adequate written description.
In order to satisfy the written description requirement, “the
specification must describe an invention understandable to [a] skilled artisan
and show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.” Ariad
Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en
banc). “[T]he test for sufficiency is whether the disclosure of the application
relied upon reasonably conveys to those skilled in the art that the inventor
had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Id.
(citation omitted).
All independent claims recite either “multiplexing the plurality of
payloads” (claims 1 and 39) or “a multiplexed payload” (claims 32 and 51).
The disclosure makes no reference to multiplexing payloads, other than
mentioning “an additional multiplexing extended header (MEH).” See
Specification || 76, 79. Thus, the disclosure of Appellant’s application does
not reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that Appellant had
possession of the subject matter now claimed as of the filing date of the
application. See Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 25—32, 36—39, 44—
51, 55-61, and 66-73.
We newly reject claims 1, 25—32, 36—39, 44—51, 55—61, and 66—73
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
5
Appeal 2017-005463
Application 12/995,607
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) provides a “new ground of rejection pursuant to
this paragraph shall not be considered final for judicial review.”
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN
TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise
one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection
to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims:
(1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the
claims so rejected or new Evidence relating to the claims so rejected,
or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which
event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner ....
(2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under
§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same Record ....
REVERSED:
37 C.F.R, $ 41.50(b)
6