Ex Parte Kottilingal et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2017

13842839 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 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.
13/842,839 03/15/2013 Sudeep Ravi Kottilingal 1212-258US01/121413 9312
15150 7590 09/28/2017
Shumaker & Sieffert, P. A.
1625 Radio Drive, Suite 100
Woodbury, MN 55125
EXAMINER
FAROOQUI, QUAZI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/28/2017 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):
pairdocketing @ ssiplaw.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUDEEP RAVI KOTTILINGAL,
CHRISTIAN JOSEF WIESNER, DAFNA SHAOOL,
and JEFFREY DAVID SHABEL
(Applicant: Qualcomm Incorporated)
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,8391
Technology Center 2400
Before LARRY J. HUME, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUME, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—52, all pending claims in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Qualcomm Inc. App.
Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
The Invention
STATEMENT OF THE CASE2
Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate "to
content data flow, and more particularly, to protection mechanisms for data."
Spec. 12.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 7, and 8, reproduced below, are representative of the subject
matter on appeal (emphasis, labeling, and formatting added to contested
limitations):
1. A content receiver comprising:
an unsecure processor;
an unsecure address region of memory coupled to the
unsecure processor;
content protection zone hardware including a secure
address region of memory; and
an input for receiving content, the input coupled to the
content protection zone hardware,
wherein the content protection zone hardware
determines if the received content is secure or unsecure,
[LI] directs the received content to the secure address
region of memory when the received content is secure content,
and directs the received content to the unsecure address region
of memory when the received content is unsecure content,
2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed
July 6, 2016); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Nov. 22, 2016); Examiner's
Answer ("Ans.," mailed Sept. 29, 2016); Final Office Action ("Final Act.,"
mailed Dec. 9, 2015); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed
Mar. 15,2013).
2
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
the content protection zone hardware including a memory
controller that enforces the secure address region and the
unsecure address region,
[L2] wherein a read request from the unsecure processor
includes tag information indicating that the unsecure processor
is making the read request, and
[L3] wherein the memory controller receiving the tag
information keeps the unsecure processor from reading the
secure address region of memory based on the tag information.
7. The content receiver of claim 1, wherein the
content protection zone hardware is further configured to
determine if the received content is secure or unsecure by
determining if at least a portion of the received content is
encrypted and wherein content is protected by the content
protection zone hardware when the content is not encrypted.
8. The content receiver of claim 1, wherein the
content protection zone hardware is further configured to
determine if the received content is secure or unsecure by
making a determination based on a syntax element indicating if
the received content is secure or unsecure.
Prior Art
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in
rejecting the claims on appeal:
Suzuoki et al. ("Suzuoki") US 2006/0112213 A1
Conti US 2007/0067826 Al
Buonpane et al. ("Buonpane") US 2010/0306519 Al
May 25, 2006
Mar. 22, 2007
Dec. 2, 2010
3
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Suzuoki, Buonpane, and Conti. Final
Act. 5.
CLAIM GROUPING
Based on our review of Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 10-24), we
decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1—6 and 9—20, 23—
33, 36-45, and 48—50 on the basis of representative claim 1; we decide the
appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 7, 21, 34, 46, and 513 on the
basis of representative claim 7; and we decide the appeal of the obviousness
rejection of claims 8, 22, 35, 47, and 524 on the basis of representative
claim 8.
Although Appellants request "separate review of each group of claims
argued under separate headings" (App. Br. 10), we note Appellants'
arguments for their designated Claim Groups 2 through 5 (App. Br. 18—22)
are not truly separate, substantive arguments. For example, with respect to
their designated Claim Group 2 (Claims 15—20 and 23—28), Appellants
merely allege:
As discussed above with regard to the claims of Group 1,
and particularly with respect to independent claim 1, the applied
references fail to disclose or suggest "wherein a read request
from the unsecure processor includes tag information indicating
that the unsecure processor is making the read request," as
recited in claim 1. For at least the same reasons, the applied
3 Designated by Appellants as "GROUP 6." App. Br. 11.
4 Designated by Appellants as "GROUP 7." App. Br. 11.
4
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
references fail to disclose or suggest the same limitation in
claim 15.
App. Br. 18.
Appellants set forth similar arguments for remaining groups 3
through 5, which are not truly separate arguments because they merely rely
upon arguments for claim 1 in Group 1. App. Br. 19—22.5
ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all
arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we
deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claims 1—52
and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate herein by reference and adopt as
our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action
from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in
the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments regarding claims 1,7, and 8 for
emphasis as follows.
5 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of
appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together
shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the
patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of
dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they
depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
5
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
1. $ 103 Rejection of Claims 1—6 and 9-20, 23—33, 36-45, and 48—50
Issue 1
Appellants argue (App. Br. 12—17; Reply Br. 6—8) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Suzuoki, Buonpane, and Conti is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests labeled limitations LI through L3, as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
Limitation LI—Directing Received Content to a Secure or Unsecure
Address Region
Our reviewing court guides, '"[a] prima facie case of obviousness is
established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have
suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art.'"
In re Bell, 991 F.2d 781, 783 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting In re Rinehart, 531
F.2d 1048, 1051 (CCPA 1976)).
Appellants contend "Buonpane fails to teach or suggest directing 'the
received content to the secure address region of memory when the received
content is secure content' [limitation LI] or directing 'the received content to
the unsecure address region of memory when the received content is
unsecure content,' [limitation L2] as recited in claim 1." App. Br 16
(emphasis omitted). Appellants allege this is so because:
Buonpane does not distinguish between secure and unsecure
address regions of memory when storing data to memory.
Instead, when the system memory is in secure mode, data to be
written to memory is only accepted from secure masters, while
in unsecure mode, data to be written to memory is accepted
6
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
from any device and is only treated as unsecure data. Neither
function is a reflection of the type of content .... While the
memory is in secure mode, data written to memory is encrypted
while in unsecure mode, data written to memory is not
encrypted.
App. Br. 16—17.
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree:
BUONPANE does teaches a method to maintain security of
memory content by maintaining separate memory location for
secured and unsecured data (Fig.l & [0017] lines 1—7, a secure
read-only memory (ROM) 150 and an unsecure ROM 160 are
also coupled to, and configured to be bus slaves for, the bus
interconnect 120. In the illustrated embodiment, the secure
ROM 150 is available via the bus interconnect 120 only in the
secure mode, and the unsecure ROM 160 is available via the
bus interconnect 120 in both the secure and unsecure modes.
Here, memory arbiter (Fig.2 element 233) decides memory
access request by unsecure processor).
Ans. 9 (emphasis omitted).
In the Reply Brief, Appellants repeat the arguments quoted above, and
further contend Buonpane cannot teach "content zone hardware" that
determines if the received content is secure or unsecure and directs the
content to the appropriate address region of memory (secure or unsecure)
(Reply Br. 6) because Buonpane teaches "a system memory that goes in and
out of secure mode . . . [and w]hile the memory is in secure mode, data
written to memory is encrypted [and] while in unsecure mode, data written
to memory is not encrypted." Reply Br. 7.
We agree with the Examiner's finding quoted above that Buonpane
teaches the use of both secure and unsecure memory depending on the
content type. We disagree with Appellants' arguments because they are not
7
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
responsive to the Examiner's rejection in which the Examiner relies upon
Suzuoki as teaching or suggesting the recited "content protection zone
hardware." Final Act. 6 (citing Suzuoki Figs. 2, 3, 16; 167). Appellants'
contention does not persuade us of Examiner error because Appellants are
responding to the rejection by attacking the references separately, even
though the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references.
Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually when the rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir.
1986).
Limitation L2—Read Request Includes Tag Information
Appellants contend "Conti fails to teach 'wherein a read request from
the unsecure processor includes tag information indicating that the unsecure
processor is making the read request,' as recited in claim 1." App. Br. 13.
Appellants argue:
Conti's non-secure (NS) bit is not tag information
included in a read request as recited in claim 1. Moreover,
Conti's current program status register (CPSR) bits are also not
tag information included in a read request as recited in claim 1.
Instead, the NS bit is stored in a secure configuration register
(SCR), where it can be read by security state machine (SSM) 56
at any time via SECMON bus 73. At the same time, the CPSR
bits are stored in a current program status register (CPSR) 84,
where they can be read by SSM 56 at any time via SECMON
bus 73. The NS bit and the CPSR bits are, therefore, mode bits
indicative of a computer mode and not tag information that is
part of the read request. Conti cannot, therefore, teach either
"wherein a read request from the unsecure processor
includes tag information" or wherein the "tag information
8
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
findicatesl that the unsecure processor is making the read
request" as recited.
App. Br. 14 (footnotes omitted).
In response, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Conti "teaches use of
tags or marker bits for decision of secured or unsecured memory access."
Ans. 4. Further, Conti's non-secure [NS] bit indicates an unsecure mode
which, when set, "indicates that [the] processor sending the request is a non-
secure processor at the time of the request, therefore it is a bit/tag indicating
the unsecure processor is making the request when it is set." Ans. 5 (citing
Conti 17,11. 2—6 ("a method of protecting a system, comprising monitoring
a processor comprising bits indicative of a security mode and monitoring a
memory management unit (MMU) coupled to the processor and adapted to
partition memory into public and secure memories.").
The Examiner further finds Suzuoki teaches that a data access or a
read request from an unsecure processor is not allowed, and Buonpane
teaches selecting data for a secure or unsecure processor and its associated
memory. Ans. 5. Moreover, given the teachings and suggestions of
Buonpane and Conti, the Examiner finds:
[I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
at the time of the invention, to modify the content protection
system of SOUZOUKI to add (1) BUONEPANE's technique of
selecting data for secure or unsecure processor and associated
memory location and (2) CONTI's tagging technique of content
security determination method based on SSM, security state
machine and use of memory management unit, MMU. This
enhancement improves the data security system of making
decision based on additional information in the content.
Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner's findings and legal conclusions.
9
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
We agree with the Examiner because Appellants' challenge to the
references individually is not convincing of error in the Examiner's position
because all of the features of the secondary reference need not be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference, but consideration should be given to
what the combined teachings, knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would have suggested
to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981). Furthermore, the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow
the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment. See Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d
881,889 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Therefore, we find the combination of Suzuoki, Buonpane, and Conti
teaches or at least suggests "a read request from the unsecure processor
includes tag information indicating that the unsecure processor is making the
read request," as recited in claim 1.
Limitation L3—Memory Controller Controls Access to Secure Memory
Appellants contend "Conti does not teach 'wherein the memory
controller receiving the tag information keeps the unsecure processor from
reading the secure address region of memory based on the tag information,'
as recited by claim 1." App. Br. 14 (emphasis omitted).
Appellants further argue:
It is clear that the memory controller in Conti is MMU 22 and
that SSM 56 simply monitors operation of processor 46 and
MMU 22 to ensure that memory operations do not occur in
areas forbidden by the processor mode. Therefore, Conti cannot
teach "wherein the memory controller receiving the tag
information keeps the unsecure processor from reading the
10
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
secure address region of memory based on the tag information,"
as recited by claim 1.
App. Br. 15.
The Examiner finds Conti teaches a memory controller that enforces
secure and unsecure address regions. Final Act. 7 (citing Conti Fig. 1
(memory management unit (MMU) 22; security state machine (SSM)
element 56), Fig. 3 (monitor mode 308); 15). The Examiner further finds
the "MMU in conjunction with monitor unit functions as [a] memory
controller[ ] wherein a read request from the unsecure processor includes tag
information indicating that the unsecure processor is making the read request
. . . . Here, [the] SSM acts as tag to identify secured or unsecured region of
memory." Final Act. 8.
The Examiner further finds it would have been obvious to "modify the
content protection system of SOUZOUKI to add (1) BUONEPANE's
technique of selecting data for secure or unsecure processor and associated
memory location and (2) CONTI's tagging technique of content security
determination method based on SSM, security state machine and use of
memory management unit, MMU." Id.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitations of claim 1, nor do
we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 1, and grouped claims 2—6 and 9-20, 23—33, 36-45, and 48—50 which
fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra.
11
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
2. $103 Rejection of Claims 7, 21, 34, 46, and 51
Issue 2
Appellants argue (App. Br. 22—23) the Examiner's rejection of claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Suzuoki,
Buonpane, and Conti is in error. These contentions present us with the
following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the content receiver of claim 1, "wherein the content protection
zone hardware is further configured to determine if the received content is
secure or unsecure by determining if at least a portion of the received
content is encrypted and wherein content is protected by the content
protection zone hardware when the content is not encrypted," as recited in
claim 7?
Analysis
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in citing Suzuoki as teaching
or suggesting the contested limitation of claim 7 because the portion of the
reference cited by the Examiner "simply reflects Suzuoki's disclosure that an
authentication program can be decrypted using a key stored in the secret data
area. There is no determining 'if the received content is secure or unsecure
by determining if at least a portion of the received content is encrypted' or
protecting the content in the content protection zone hardware when the
content is not encrypted.'" App. Br. 22—23.
In response, the Examiner reiterates, and we agree, Suzuoki teaches:
[T]he security circuit preferably places the apparatus into the
second mode when the apparatus runs an authentication routine,
12
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
which includes executing a decryption program and executing
an authentication program, the authentication program
including a copy of the second key, and the authentication
program having been encrypted in accordance with the first
key.
Ans.10.
We agree with the Examiner because we find execution of a
decryption program as a result of an authentication routine teaches or at least
suggests determining whether the received content is secure or unsecure.
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 7, nor do we
find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 7, and grouped claims 21, 34, 46, and 51 which fall therewith. See
Claim Grouping, supra.
3. $ 103 Rejection of Claims 8, 22, 35, 47, and 52
Issue 3
Appellants argue (App. Br. 23—24; Reply Br.l 1—13) the Examiner's
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Suzuoki, Buonpane, and Conti is in error. These contentions
present us with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches
or suggests the content receiver of claim 1, "wherein the content protection
zone hardware is further configured to determine if the received content is
secure or unsecure by making a determination based on a syntax element
13
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
indicating if the received content is secure or unsecure," as recited in
claim 8?
Analysis
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 8 by relying
upon a portion of Conti that "simply reflects Conti's disclosure that 'The
status of the NS bit determines whether the computer system 100 is in secure
mode or non-secure mode.'" App. Br. 23—24. Appellants further argue
"[t]he status of the NS bit [in Conti] cannot be used both to show the
computer mode and to 'determine if the received content is secure or
unsecure by making a determination based on a syntax element indicating if
the received content is secure or unsecure.'" App. Br. 24.
We agree with the Examiner's finding that Conti's NS bit teaches or at
least suggests the recited "syntax element." Ans. 11 ("According to claim 8
& spec [0026] syntax element flag also acts same as claim l's tag, hence
CONTI's NS bit is used to reject this limitation.") (citing Conti Fig. 1,
element 100; Fig. 2, element 84; 128,11. 1—3).
We agree with the Examiner because the plain language of the claim
does not require any particular implementation of the recited "syntax
element," and the claim language does not preclude using a bit, i.e., the NS
bit in the manner claimed.
We disagree with Appellants' argument in the Reply Brief that
"Appellant's specification indicates that 'secure processor 110 may check the
state of a secure syntax element flag in the data ... to indicate if the data is
secure or unsecure (emphasis added)."' Reply Br. 12 (citing Spec. 1 63).
"[A]ppellant[s'] arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not
14
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
based on limitations appearing in the claims." In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348 (CCPA 1982).6
Therefore, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the cited prior art
combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 8, nor do we
find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent
claim 8, and grouped claims 22, 35, 47, and 52 which fall therewith. See
Claim Grouping, supra.
6 "In the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest
reasonable interpretations . . . limitations are not to be read into the claims
from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir.
1993) (citations omitted). Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be
sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage
would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the
invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473,
1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip.,
Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own
lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from
its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly
express that intent in the written description."). Absent an express intent to
impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and
customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art.
Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed.
Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). In this case, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, we find the recited "syntax element" reads on the disclosed
NS bit.
15
Appeal 2017-002302
Application 13/842,839
REPLY BRIEF
To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply
Brief (Reply Br. 5—13) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position
in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not
raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the
Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37
CE.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of
claims 1—52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combination of
record, and we sustain the rejection.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—52.
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)(iv). See 37
C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
16