Ex Parte Ma

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 2012

10460969 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 10/460,969 06/13/2003 Kenneth Ma 14528.00303 6060 16378 7590 11/01/2012 Broadcom/BHGL P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 EXAMINER LIPMAN, JACOB ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/01/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KENNETH MA ____________ Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-20, 26-28, 30-32, 34, and 37-49, which are all the claims pending in the application. Claims 6, 7, 10, 21-25, 29, 33, 35, and 36 have been canceled. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Representative Claim 1. A method to perform authentication of a wireless communication device comprising: first receiving a first value by a first wireless communication device from a wireless carrier; first transmitting said first value to a second wireless communication device using a secured air interface; said second wireless communication device applying an algorithm to said first value and a key to generate a single output; second receiving said single output by said first wireless communication device by way of said secured air interface; storing said single output at said first wireless communication device for possible re-authentication at a future time; second transmitting said single output to said wireless carrier, said wireless carrier comparing said single output to a second value calculated at said carrier to perform authentication of said first wireless communication device; and reusing said stored single output to perform said authentication when said second wireless communication device is powered off. Prior Art Michener US 5,351,293 Sept. 27, 1994 Nyman US 2002/0169966 A1 Nov. 14, 2002 Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 3 Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-20, 26-28, 30-32, 34, and 37-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nyman and Michener. Claim Groupings Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims 1-4, 9, 13, 16, 19, 20, 34, 37, 45, and 47. ANALYSIS Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 17 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach “first receiving a first value by a first wireless communication device from a wireless carrier” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 5. The Examiner finds that Nyman teaches sending challenges from the gateway 150 to client 110. The Examiner further finds that the gateway and Home Location Register (HLR) of Nyman are part of a wireless carrier. Ans. 6. Figure 1 of Nyman shows wireless links and a gateway 150 that may operate as a mobile services switching center. ¶ [0091]. We find that Nyman teaches “a wireless carrier” within the meaning of claim 1. Nyman teaches that the client, or “first wireless communication device,” receives n challenges, or “a first value,” from the wireless carrier. ¶ [0096]. We find that Nyman teaches “first receiving a first value by a first wireless communication device from a wireless carrier” as recited in claim 1. Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach “generat[ing] a single output” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 5-7. According to Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 4 Appellant, Nyman uses the term “n signed responses,” which teaches multiple responses rather than a single response. Reply Br. 6. The Examiner finds that when n is 1, Nyman teaches a single output within the meaning of claim 1. Ans. 7. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding. Appellant also contends that Nyman does not obtain signed challenges by “applying an algorithm to said first value and a key” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner finds that Nyman teaches receiving challenges as input values and outputs a signed response, which teaches applying an algorithm within the meaning of claim 1 giving this phrase its broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. Ans. 6. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding. Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach “storing said single output at said first wireless communication device for possible re-authentication at a future time” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 17. Nyman teaches that the authenticator can be used as a session key (Abstract), which teaches “storing . .. for possible re-authentication at a future time” within the meaning of claim 1. Appellant contends that the combination of Nyman and Michener does not teach “reusing said stored single output to perform said authentication when said second wireless communication device is powered off” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 18-19; Reply Br. 7-8. According to Appellant, generating a new session key as taught by Michener does not teach “reusing said stored single output” limitation of claim 1. Michener teaches using the secret key to generate a new session key (Abstract). Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 5 Michener suggests reusing the secret key to perform authentication by generating a new session key from the secret key. Further, Nyman teaches that the authenticator can be used as a session key (Abstract), which teaches “reusing” within the meaning of claim 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner has not provided motivation for combining the teachings of Nyman and Michener. App. Br. 20-21. The Examiner finds that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the secret key of Nyman as a session key for further communication, even when the mobile station is powered off, to protect againstattacks. Ans. 3-4. Appellant contends that the new session key of Michener would not be used for further communication, because it is newly generated for each session. App. Br. 20. However, the new session key taught by Michener is generated from the secret key, which therefore teaches “reusing.” Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s reason to combine teachings. We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant has not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 12, 14, and 17 which fall with claim 1. Section 103 rejection of claims 19 and 30-32 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach “transmitting said second value directly to said wireless carrier” as recited in claim 19. App. Br. 22-23; Reply Br. 8-10. According to Appellant, the value transmitted by client 110 is altered before it reaches the carrier. Reply Br. 10. The Examiner finds that the value transmitted by the client is not altered before it reaches the carrier. Ans. 7; see ¶ [0099].. Appellant has not provided Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 6 persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings. Further, Appellant has not provided a definition of “said first wireless communication device second transmitting said second value directly to said wireless carrier” that excludes the wireless device 110, when connected to local domain 140, transmitting the value to mobile communication network 160 as shown in Figure 1 of Nyman. We sustain the rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claim 34 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach an output generated using “one or more algorithms” as recited in claim 34. App. Br. 26, 28. The Examiner finds that Nyman teaches receiving challenges as input values and outputs a signed response, which teaches generating an output using an algorithm. Ans. 6. We agree with the Examiner. Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach “wherein said one output is transmitted directly to said wireless carrier and compared to a second value calculated at said wireless carrier, said authenticating performed using a single communication path” as recited in claim 34. App. Br. 26-28. We find this argument unpersuasive for the reasons discussed in our analysis of claim 19. For any arguments referring back to claim 1 or related to an output generated using an algorithm, we are not persuaded for the previous reasons discussed in connection with claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 7 Section 103 rejection of claims 37, 41, 43, and 44 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach “said first receiving, first transmitting, second receiving, second transmitting, comparing, and enabling performed using a single mobile telecommunications network common to said wireless carrier, and said first and said second wireless communication devices” as recited in claim 37. Appellant has not provided a definition of “single mobile telecommunications network common to said wireless carrier, and said first and said second wireless communication devices” that excludes the communication network 100 shown in Figure 1 of Nyman. For any arguments referring back to claim 1, we are not persuaded for the previous reasons discussed in connection with claim 1. We sustain the rejection of claim 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant has not provided arguments for separate patentability of claims 41, 43, and 44 which fall with claim 37. Section 103 rejection of claim 45 Appellant presents arguments for the patentability of claim 45 similar to those presented for claim 37, which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the rejection of claim 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 47 and 49 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach “first receiving a personal identification number by a first communications device to initiate pairing between said first communications device to a second communications device” as recited in claim 47. App. Br. 41; Reply Br. 11. Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 8 Nyman teaches sending a personal identification number from a client device to a mobile station. ¶¶ [0032], [0093], [0094], and [0102]. We therefore find that Nyman teaches “first receiving a personal identification number by a first communications device to initiate pairing between said first communications device to a second communications device” as recited in claim 47. Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach “transmitting a periodic signal to said second communications device from said first communications device to perform automatic pairing” within the meaning of claim 47. App. Br. 41; Reply Br. 11. Nyman teaches storing the identity of the identity module at the client, and periodically refreshing the link (¶ [0102]), which teaches “transmitting a periodic signal to said second communications device from said first communications device to perform automatic pairing” within the meaning of claim 47. We sustain the rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant has not provided arguments for separate patentability of claim 49 which falls with claim 47. Section 103 rejection of claims 2, 38, 46, and 48 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach a first value sent from a wireless carrier to a wireless communication device, where the first value comprises a random numeric value as recited in claim 2. According to Appellant, the random value of Nyman is sent from a home location register to a gateway. App. Br. 41-43. We disagree. We find that the random value of Nyman is a challenge that is sent to the client. ¶ [0097]. Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 9 We sustain the rejection of claims 2, 38, 46, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 3, 15, 18, and 39 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach a “key is stored in a subscriber identification mechanism of said second wireless communication device” as recited in claim 3. App. Br. 44. The Examiner finds that paragraph [0097] of Nyman teaches signing challenges by using the subscriber identification mechanism. Ans. 7-8. Appellant responds that paragraph [0097] of Nyman teaches the mobile station generates the first secret, which includes n signed responses, but does not teach that the challenges are signed using the SIM. Reply Br. 12. Paragraph [0097] teaches that the first secret comprises GSM keys by using its SIM. Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s findings. Appellant also contends that Nyman does not teach a “subscriber identification mechanism [that] uniquely identifies a subscriber’s billing account” as recited in claim 18. App. Br. 44. The Examiner finds that paragraph [0006] of Nyman teaches that the SIM identifies a subscriber, and the subscriber’s identity is used to identify the subscriber’s account as suggested in paragraph [0101]. Ans. 8. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. We sustain the rejection of claims 3, 15, 18, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 10 Section 103 rejection of claims 4 and 40 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach a “wide area air interface” as recited in claim 4. App. Br. 45-46; Reply Br. 13-14. Appellant has not provided persuasive evidence or argument to distinguish the wide area air interface from the wireless network interfaces that connect the mobile carrier 160, the mobile station 120, and the local domain 140. We sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 9 and 28 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach “said local area air interface comprises a 27 Mhz or 900 Mhz air interface” as recited in claim 9. In particular, Appellant contends that the Examiner has not provided documentary evidence to support the Official Notice that connecting a device to the Internet using an air interface such as Bluetooth was well known. App. Br. 47. The Examiner finds that U.S. Patent No. 6,377,825 B1 issued to Kennedy teaches that an air interface such as Bluetooth was well known at the time of invention. Final Rej. 7. Appellant has not addressed the Examiner’s finding. We sustain the rejection of claims 9 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claim 13 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach “said third receiving an input sequence is performed to initialize automatic pairing of said first wireless communication device to said second wireless communication device” as recited in claim 13. App. Br. 48. Paragraph [0102] of Nyman teaches that the PIN code need not be re-sent over the local wireless link and Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 11 the authenticator can be refreshed automatically without user interaction, which suggests “automatic pairing” within the meaning of claim 13. We sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claim 16 Appellant contends that Nyman does not teach an “unblocking sequence” as recited in claim 16. In particular, Appellant contends that the PIN is blocked permanently when a user inputs the wrong PIN a certain number of times. According to Appellant, a new PIN or password is provided by the prior art, which does not teach “inputting an unblocking sequence to facilitate input of said input sequence after said input sequence has been input incorrectly a specified number of times” as recited in claim 16. App. Br. 48; Reply Br. 15. In response to Appellant’s challenge of the Examiner’s taking of Official Notice, the Examiner finds that U.S. Patent No. 5,583,933 issued to Mark teaches the “unblocking sequence.” Final Rej. 7. Mark teaches prompting a user for a PIN. If a user enters an incorrect PIN, the user is prompted to enter the requested PIN correctly, and to enter a second PIN. Mark, col. 56, l. 30-col. 57, l. 32. We sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Section 103 rejection of claims 20, 26, 27, and 42 Appellant contend that Nyman does not teach “said first value received by said second wireless communication device occurs by way of a first transmission from said wireless carrier to said first wireless communication device and a second transmission from said first wireless communication device to said second wireless communication device” as Appeal 2010-005183 Application 10/460,969 12 recited in claim 20. In particular, Appellant contends that Nyman teaches a client sending values to gateway 150, which forwards the values to HLR. Appellant also contends that Nyman shows mobile station sending outputs to client 110, then to FA block 141, AAAF block 142, and then to gateway 150. Appellant concludes that Nyman does not teach the limitations of claim 20. App. Br. 50-51. We find that the client 110, or “first communication device” receives a value from gateway 150 (which is part of mobile telecommunications network 160), or “wireless carrier” (¶[0096]), then sends the value to the mobile station 120, or “second communication device” (¶ [0097]). We sustain the rejection of claims 20, 26, 27, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-20, 26-28, 30-32, 34, and 37-49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nyman and Michener 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED gvw