Ex Parte Kottilingal et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201713842839 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation