Ex Parte MITO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2016

11761765 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
111761,765 06/12/2007 KumikoMITO
22850 7590 05/25/2016
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, LLP,
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
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.
310415US2 1574
EXAMINER
CALLAHAN, PAULE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2437
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/25/2016 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):
patentdocket@oblon.com
oblonpat@oblon.com
ahudgens@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUMIKO MIT0 1
Appeal2014-004073
Application 11/761,765
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. An oral hearing was held April 14, 2016. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellant discloses a "semiconductor memory [that] includes a
memory array and a scramble/descramble unit." Abstract.
1 Appellant identifies MEGA CHIPS CORPORATION as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004073
Application 11/761,765
Exemplary Claim
Claim L reproduced below~ is representative:
1. A semiconductor memory comprising:
a memory array; and
a scramble/descramble unit that generates output data by
scrambling read data read from said memory array, that
generates a command for said memory array by descrambling a
received scrambled command signal, and that updates a method
of generating a key used for said scrambling and/or
descrambling upon satisfaction of a prescribed condition by at
least one selected between at least two out of said scrambled
command signal, said command, said read data, and said output
data.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1--4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kaminaga et al. (US
7 ,086,087 B 1, issued Aug. 1, 2006). Final Act. 4--9.
The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Kaminaga and Bradley (US 7,016, 398 B2, issued
Mar. 21, 2006). Final Act. 14--15.
The Examiner rejects claims 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kaminaga and Kim et al. (US 7,362,867
Bl, issued Apr. 22, 2008). Final Act. 9-14.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding Kaminaga discloses the claimed
scramble/ descramble unit?
2
Appeal2014-004073
Application 11/761,765
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellant's arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Kaminaga's twenty-fifth
embodiment setting of a random-number generation device initial value
when an information processing device is activated or reset discloses a
scramble/ descramble unit that updates a method of generating a key used for
said scrambling and/or descrambling upon satisfaction of a prescribed
condition by at least one selected between at least two out of said scrambled
command signal, said command, said read data, and said output data. Final
Act. 4 (citing, e.g., Kaminaga col. 53, 11. 42---64, and Fig. 34); Ans. 17-18.
Appellant argues that "while the applied embodiments of Kaminaga
... describe[] aspects of generating a key or updating a key, each 'method of
generating a key' remains the same and is not updated." Reply Br. 5.
However, as Appellant acknowledges in the summary of the claimed subject
matter, the claimed "methods of updating the method of generating a key ...
include updating an initial value." App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. 3:14--18; 13:9-
15, and 14:24--15:3). Kaminaga sets a random-number generation device
initial value, thus this initial value is updated rather than remaining
unchanged. See Ans. 17-18 (citing Kaminaga col. 53, 11. 55---60). We agree
with the Examiner that this setting (i.e., updating) falls within a broad, but
reasonable, interpretation of the claimed update of a method of generating a
key used for scrambling and/or descrambling. See Ans. 17-18.
3
Appeal2014-004073
Application 11/761,765
Appellant further contends the Examiner erred because "Kaminaga
randomizes the initial value of the device only when it is activated or reset,
the initial value remains unchanged once the device is activated." App. Br.
21. However, the Examiner finds, in Kaminaga, the activation itself
discloses the claimed satisfaction of a prescribed condition because
"Kaminaga teaches that the new key is generated every time the processing
device is activated, i.e.[,] every time it is called upon to perform encryption
of data." Ans. 18. Furthermore, Appellant unpersuasively relies on a
purported benefit that is merely disclosed in the Specification, but
unclaimed, in arguing that Kaminaga differs because analysis of Kaminaga's
random-number generation device allows for prediction of the key. App. Br.
21-22 (citing Spec. 1 :20-2:2). Thus, Appellant does not persuasively
distinguish the claimed satisfaction of a prescribed condition by at least one
selected between at least two out of said scrambled command signal, said
command, said read data, and said output data from the device activation or
resetting of Kaminaga.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner further finds Kaminaga' s
encryption/ decryption devices-by generating output data by performing a
scrambling/descrambling operation on data being written to or read from a
memory cell array---disclose a scramble/descramble unit that generates
output data by scrambling read data read from said memory array, that
generates a command for said memory array by descrambling a received
scrambled command signal. Final Act. 4 (citing, e.g., Kaminaga Fig. 34).
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because "while Claim 1
recites that the scramble/descramble unit generates output data by
scrambling read data read from the memory array, Kaminaga describes
4
Appeal2014-004073
Application 11/761,765
scrambling (encrypting) data that is then written into the memory array."
App. Br. 24. Appellant further argues "while Claim 1 recites that the
scramble/ descramble unit generates a command for the memory array by
descrambling a received scrambled command signal, Kaminaga describes
descrambling (decrypting) data that is read out from the memory array." Id.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error because the encryption and
decryption operations disclosed in Kaminaga are both disclosed as merely
being the application of an exclusive-or operation of data with a key. See
Kaminaga Fig. 34. That is, encryption in Kaminaga is symmetrical, with
encryption or scrambling operations performed using the same operation as
decryption or descrambling. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that
Kaminaga's data discloses the claimed commands. See Ans. 23. Thus,
Appellant does not persuasively distinguish the claimed scramble/
descramble unit-with its scrambling of data read from a memory array and
with its descrambling of a received scrambled command signal-from
Kaminaga's use of encryption/decryption devices 7003, 7004.
Appellant further argues:
Kaminaga does not explicitly describe that all of the features of
all of the embodiments may be incorporated in any of the other
embodiments, a position that the Examiner's Answer
improperly takes, e.g., with respect to the 25th embodiment,
without establishing a rationale as to obviousness or
combining the features. Such picking and choosing of features
is not appropriate for establishing a prima facie case of
anticipation, the Examiner's Answer does not establish a
rationale to support a prima facie case of obviousness, and the
Examiner's Answer does not even explicitly allege a rejection
of the claims based on obviousness.
Reply Br. 4 (footnote omitted).
5
Appeal2014-004073
Application 11/761,765
Appellant's argument that the Examiner erroneously combined
disclosures from alternate embodiments in Kaminaga is unpersuasive of
error because the Examiner's findings are fully supported by the twenty-fifth
embodiment of Kaminaga. See Kaminaga col. 53, 11. 42-64, Fig. 34.
Because one embodiment alone in Kaminaga provides sufficient disclosure
to anticipate the invention of claim 1, Appellant's arguments regarding the
combinability of the twenty-fifth embodiment of Kaminaga with alternative
embodiments disclosed in Kaminaga are moot.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection
ofclaim 1, andclaims2--4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 19, and20, which Appellant
does not argue separately. Appellant's arguments with respect to the
Examiner's obviousness rejections are similar. Appellant merely argues
"neither Kim nor Bradley cures the deficiencies of Kaminaga." App. Br. 25.
As we do not find Kaminaga deficient, we do not find Appellant's
arguments persuasive of error. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14, 17, and 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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(±).
AFFIRMED
6