Ex Parte Jiang

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 29, 2016

11984790 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111984,790 11/21/2007
106622 7590 07/01/2016
Blue Capital Law Firm, P,C,
650 Town Center Drive, Suite 1530
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sam Shiaw-Shiang Jiang
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1291-101.102 2087
EXAMINER
ALMEIDA, DEVINE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/01/2016 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):
docketing@bluecapitallaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAM SHIA W-SHIANG JIANG
Appeal2013-009493
Application 11/984,790
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-16. App Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
NEC (NEC, "Integrity Protection on NAS Transfer," R2-061975, TSG-RAN
Working Group 2 #53bis, 27-30 June 2006, Cannes, France), Hyyppa
(US 2006/0056324 Al; Mar. 16, 2006), and 3GPP (3GPP TR 25.813 V7. l.O
(2006-09) Technical Report, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical
Appeal2013-009493
Application 11/984,790
Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial
Radio Access (E- UTRA) and Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access
Network (E-UTRAN); Radio interface protocol aspects (Release 7), pages
1--41). Non-Final Act. 3-10.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "a method and apparatus for
accurately performing ciphering in the wireless communications system so
as to enhance information security." Spec. 1:11-13. Claim 1 is illustrative
and reproduced below:
1. A method for performing ciphering in a wireless
communications system comprising:
performing a first ciphering procedure for a first Non-
Access Stratum message to get a second Non-Access Stratum
message;
generating a Radio Resource Control message, which is
not ciphered, in a Radio Resource Control layer;
combining the ciphered second Non-Access Stratum
message with the un-ciphered Radio Resource Control message
to form a first concatenated message;
performing a second ciphering procedure to both the
ciphered second NAS message and the un-ciphered RRC
message within the first concatenated message to get a second
concatenated message; and
transmitting, the second concatenated message.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds NEC, Hyppa, and 3GPP teach all limitations of
claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3--4.
2
Appeal2013-009493
Application 11/984,790
The Examiner reasons:
NEC does not teach the messages are ciphered. Hyyppa
teaches that at each integrity protection point[,] the content is
encrypted as well as integrity protection [sic] (see
paragra[p ]h0053). It would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to
which said subject matter pertains to have performed encryption
along with integrity protection to increase the security of the
message. Therefore one would have been motivated to have done
encryption on the messages (see Hyyppa paragraph 0053).
3GPP also teaches that an NAS message can have integrity
protection and ciphering done to it (see section 5.3.3 and 5.3.3.1 ).
It would have been obvious at the time the invention was made
to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains to have ciphered a NAS message as a secure way
to send a message (see section 5. 3. 3 and 5. 3. 3 .1). Therefore one
would have been motivated to have ciphered the NAS message.
Non-Final Act. 4.
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
1.
[T]he combination of NEC and Hyyppa [(i-f 53)] fails to disclose
ciphering of a combined message consisting of ciphered data and
un-ciphered data. Hyyppa only discloses ciphering data once and
does not disclose how to process a ciphered data concatenated
with an un-ciphered data as recited in the claims of the present
application.
App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2.
11. "The Examiner has failed to show how the general ciphering
and integrity protection taught in 3GPP TR 25.813 would cure the
deficiencies of NEC and Hyyppa as discussed above." App. Br. 9; see also
Reply Br. 2.
3
Appeal2013-009493
Application 11/984,790
111. "Appellant respectfully submits that the Examiner has not
provided the requisite motivation to combine the citied references." App. Br.
9.
In the Examiner's Answer, the Examiner explains:
NEC teaches integrity protection of Non-Access Stratum
message and then integrity protection of the Non-Access Stratum
message concatenated with a Radio Resource Control message.
NEC does not teach ciphering at these integrity protection points.
Hyyppa teaches that at each integrity protection point[,] the
content is encrypted as well as integrity protection [sic] (see
paragraph 0053). With the motivation to increase the security of
the message (see Hyyppa paragraph 0053). 3GPP is used to
show that it is well know that an NAS message and RRC
messages can have integrity protection and ciphering done to
it at the same time (see section 5.3.3, 5.3.3.1, 5.4 and 5.4.1) as
taught by Hyppa as a way to have built in security for the
messages.
Ans. 4--5.
We do not see any errors in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any errors in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981) (citations omitted).
NEC discloses combining the integrity protected Non-Access Stratum
(NAS) message with the un-ciphered Radio Resource Control (RRC)
message to form a first concatenated message. See NEC Figure 2. NEC does
not disclose that the NAS message is ciphered. See NEC Figure 2.
4
Appeal2013-009493
Application 11/984,790
NEC discloses performing a second integrity protection procedure to
both the integrity protected NAS message and the un-ciphered RRC
message within the first concatenated message to obtain a second
concatenated message. See NEC Figure 2. NEC does not disclose
performing a second ciphering procedure. See NEC Figure 2.
H yyppa provides a general teaching of ciphering (encrypting)
integrity protected content. See Hyyppa i-f 53 ("At a minimum, the [Rights
Issuer ("RI")] metadata of the [digital rights management protected content
file ("DCF")] associates the DCF ContentID with the encryption key used to
encrypt the content, and may include also a hash value calculated over the
DCF for integrity protection purposes.").
Further, 3GPP provides a specific teaching of ciphering the NAS
message. See 3GPP, sections 5.3.3, 5.3.3.1. Thus, when combined, NEC,
Hyyppa, and 3GPP teach ciphering the NAS message (Hyyppa's general
teaching, 3GPP's specific teaching) and performing a second ciphering
procedure to both the ciphered NAS message and the un-ciphered RRC
message within the first concatenated message to get a second concatenated
message (H yyppa' s general teaching).
Appellant's argument i does not show reversible error because 3GPP
teaches ciphering the NAS message. See 3GPP, sections 5.3.3, 5.3.3.1.
Further, Hyyppa's teachings are not limited to ciphering data once; rather,
Hyyppa provides a general teaching of ciphering (encrypting) integrity
protected content. See Hyyppa i-f 53.
Appellant's argument ii does not show reversible error because, as
explained above, the argued limitations are taught by the combined
teachings of NEC, Hyyppa, and 3GPP.
5
Appeal2013-009493
Application 11/984,790
Finally, Appellant's argument iii does not show any error because the
Examiner explained why a skilled artisan would have combined the
teachings of NEC, Hyyppa, and 3GPP to increase security. See Non-Final
Act. 4; see also Ans. 4--5.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2-16, which are not separately argued with particularity.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-16 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l ).
AFFIRMED
6