Ex Parte Sharma

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 17, 2018

14231634 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/231,634 03/31/2014 107693 7590 09/17/2018 Idaax Technologies c/o Cortex Law Group, P.C. PO Box 1210 Morgan Hill, CA 95038 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Vishnu Sharma 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. IDAX-0002.US2 1018 EXAMINER LIN, AMIE CHINYU ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2436 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/17/2018 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 VISHNU SHARMA Appeal2018-002789 Application 14/231,634 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, BETH Z. SHAW, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION Appellant's invention is directed to increasing communication security for communication of Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) messages between computer systems. Spec., Abstract, 2:5-7. 1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed August 17, 2017 ("App. Br."), the Reply Brief filed January 19, 2018 ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed December 13, 2017 ("Ans."), and the Final Rejection mailed May 31, 2017 ("Final Act."). Appeal2018-002789 Application 14/231,634 Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and reproduced below: 1. A method of increasing communication security, said method comprising: receiving, from a first computer system at a second computer system, a Constrained Application Protocol (CoAP) message, wherein said CoAP message includes authentication data and a header, wherein said CoAP message further includes message data separate from said header; performing message validation based on said authentication data, wherein said performing message validation further comprises accessing an authentication mechanism identifier from said message data, and wherein said performing message validation further comprises performing said message validation using an authentication mechanism associated with said authentication mechanism identifier; and if said CoAP message is valid, performing at least one operation associated with said CoAP message. REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-5, 7, 10-18, 20, and 22-25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharyya et al. ("Lightweight mutual authentication for CoAP (WIP)" (2014)), Haustein et al. (US 2014/0244598 Al, pub. Aug. 28, 2014), and Wei et al. (US 2008/0178004 Al, pub. July 24, 2008). Final Act. 9. The Examiner rejected claims 8 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharyya, Haustein, Wei, and Graham et al. (US 2002/0178271 Al, pub. Nov. 28, 2002). Final Act. 15. 2 The Examiner rejected claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over Bhattacharyya, Haustein, Wei, Vialen et al. (US 2 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 6 and 19 in the Answer. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal2018-002789 Application 14/231,634 2005/0033960 Al, pub. Feb. 10, 2005), and Vines (US 6,252,873 Bl, issued June 26, 2001 ). Final Act. 17. CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant's arguments in the Brief, the Examiner's obviousness rejections, and the Examiner's response to the Appellant's arguments. Appellant does not proffer sufficient argument or evidence for us to find error in the Examiner's findings. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in the Final Action and Answer. Appellant makes several general arguments that the Examiner improperly combined the cited references. See App. Br. 11---64. For example, Appellant argues the rationale to combine WIP and Haustein is conclusory. Id. at 16. Similarly, Appellant argues the rationale to combine WIP, Haustein, and Wei is conclusory. Id. at 22. Appellant argues the suggestion to combine references must be found in the prior art and the Examiner has not pointed to a specific portion of WIP or Haustein to support the combination, and that Haustein's teachings conflict with WIP's teachings because Haustein compares data from a received message with data generated based on the received message. App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 9. Upon reviewing the record before us, we find that the Examiner's suggestion for the proposed modifications in the prior art suffices as an articulated reason with a rational underpinning to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Not only are Appellant's contentions unsubstantiated by any persuasive evidence on this record, it is well settled that "a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an 3 Appeal2018-002789 Application 14/231,634 actual, physical substitution of elements." In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a secondary reference's features can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. And here, the Examiner's proposed combination uses prior-art elements predictably according to their established functions to yield a predictable result. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. The references need not have a precise teaching to add Haustein's authentication mechanism to WIP 's system to render the claim obvious, for such an addition would have been within ordinarily skilled artisans' knowledge when accounting for the inferences and creative steps that these artisans would have employed. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 416. Therefore, the Examiner's proposed combinations of the cited references are supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. See Ans. 2-17. Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner's proffered combinations would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art," we agree with the Examiner that the proposed modifications would have been within the purview of the ordinarily skilled artisan. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418); Ans. 8-9. Thus, the Examiner's findings are reasonable, and we find no reversible error. Accordingly, for these reasons and for the reasons stated in the Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the Â§ 103 rejection of claim 1. For the 4 Appeal2018-002789 Application 14/231,634 same reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 14 and 22, for which Appellant presents no additional arguments. For the same reasons, and for the reasons stated in the Final Rejection and Answer, we also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 2--4, 7, 8, 10-13, 15-18, 20, 21, and 23- 25, which were not argued separately with particularity. Dependent Claim 5 Appellant argues the Examiner has not explained how the cited references teach "authentication data" and "second authentication data," as recited in claim 5, which depends from claim 1. App. Br. 27. The Examiner finds Haustein teaches generating second authentication data based on at least a portion of a message; and comparing said second authentication data to an authentication data to determine whether said message is valid. Ans. 18 ( citing Haustein ,r,r 50, 51 ). Appellant argues WIP does not teach "second authentication data," however. Reply Br. 27. We see no error in the Examiner's proposed combination. Appellant's arguments regarding WIP's alleged shortcomings are unavailing, for the Examiner does not rely solely on WIP for teaching the second authentication data alone, but rather relies on Haustein. Ans. 18. Therefore, Appellant's arguments do not show nonobviousness. Absent persuasive rebuttal, the Examiner's findings are reasonable, and we find no reversible error. Dependent Claim 9 Appellant argues the cited references fail to teach the following elements of dependent claim 9: 5 Appeal2018-002789 Application 14/231,634 determining a length of said authentication data based on said authentication mechanism identifier; removing a portion of said CoAP message based on said length, wherein said portion of said CoAP message includes at least a portion of said authentication data; and if said CoAP message is free of a payload responsive to said removing said portion of said CoAP message, removing a payload marker from said CoAP message. App. Br. 46-50. The Examiner finds WIP teaches "said authentication data," Haustein teaches the authentication mechanism identifier, and Vialen teaches removing a portion of the CoAP message based on the length, wherein the portion of the CoAP message includes at least a portion of the authentication data. Ans. 21, 22. The Examiner finds Vialen also teaches determining a length of said authentication data based on the authentication mechanism identifier. Id. ( citing Vialen ,r,r 80, 115, Fig. 5). In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues the Examiner has not indicated which teachings of Vialen are mapped to the "authentication data" and the "authentication mechanism identifier." Reply Br. 31, 32. However, the Examiner does not rely on Vialen alone as teaching those elements, but instead explains that WIP teaches "said authentication data," and Haustein teaches the "authentication mechanism identifier." Ans. 21. The Examiner relies on Vialen to teach removing a portion of the Co AP message based on the length, wherein the portion of the Co AP message includes at least a portion of the authentication data. Id. (citing Vialen ,r,r 80, 115, Fig. 5). Appellant argues that in Vialen, any removal of the message authentication code occurs before it is added to the message and therefore does not amount to removing a portion of the message. Reply Br. 32. 6 Appeal2018-002789 Application 14/231,634 Appellant raises this argument for the first time in the Reply Brief, and the argument is not in response to a new issue brought up by the Examiner in the Answer. We therefore find this new argument untimely. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474 (BPAI 2010) (informative). Nevertheless, we are unpersuaded by this argument because we agree with the Examiner that the message is being truncated and the portion being truncated is a portion of MAC-I. Ans. 23. For the reasons discussed above, see Keller, 642 F.2d at 425, we find Appellant's argument unpersuasive. The Examiner interprets "a payload" as recited in claim 9 as a payload from a second byte through a byte before a first byte of a program association table from a first "PID O" packet. Ans. 22. The Examiner finds Vines teaches removing a payload marker from the message because the first byte of the payload (the marker) is set to a value of zero. Ans. 22 (citing Vines, 8:45-54 ("the payload from the second byte of payload through the byte before the first byte ... is removed . . . the pointer-field, which is the first byte of payload ... is set to a value of zero")). Absent persuasive rebuttal, the Examiner's findings are reasonable, and we find no reversible error. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-5, 7-18, and 20-25 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7