Ex Parte Sonnega et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2017

12296909 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 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.
KT06-001 2415
EXAMINER
FORMAN, JAMES Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/296,909 01/29/2009
28112 7590
SAILE ACKERMAN LLC
28 DAVIS AVENUE
POUGHKEEPSIE, NY 12603
Marco Alexander Henk Sonnega
01/24/2017 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 MARCO ALEXANDER HENK SONNEGA and
ZDENEK KALENDA
Appeal 2016-005592
Application 12/296,909
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
ALEX S. YAP, Administrative Patent Judges.
YAP, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 31 and 33-56,2 which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is KEY TALK B.V.
(App. Br. 2.)
2 Claims 1 30, 32, and 57 62 were cancelled previously. (See App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2016-005592
Application 12/296,909
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates “to the field of protecting data
communications in which secret keys are used to encrypt/decrypt data, and
possibly digitally sign data, which data is transmitted along a
communication path and needs to be secured.” (Specification (filed Oct. 10,
2008) (“Spec.”) 1,11. 4—6.) Claim 31 is illustrative, and is reproduced
below:
31. A method of secure data transmission in a communication
session between a client and a third party computer arrangement,
comprising:
a) setting up an initial secure, encrypted communication
session between said client and a security server via a public
communication network that is connecting said client and said
security server while using client application software installed
on the client, the security server being arranged to use an internal
digital Certificate Authority, said initial secure, encrypted
communication session using a Diffie-Hellman protocol;
b) in said initial secure, encrypted communication session,
authenticating a user of said client in an authentication process
controlled by said security server while using an authentication
protocol with a predetermined security level;
c) in said initial secure, encrypted communication session,
transmitting to said client a private key and a digital certificate
comprising a public key and one or more attributes, said private
key being associated with said public key, said digital certificate
and said private key being associated with said client and being
generated by said security server while using said digital
certificate authority;
d) in said initial secure, encrypted communication session,
automatically installing said digital certificate and private key on
said client;
2
Appeal 2016-005592
Application 12/296,909
e) performing said secure data transmission in said
communication session between said client and said third party
computer arrangement while setting up a two-sided SSL session
with said public key and said private key;
wherein said digital certificate has a limited life time defined by
at least one attribute, said at least one attribute defining at least
one of
• a predetermined duration in time,
• a predetermined number of communication sessions,
• a predetermined number of actions.
Prior Art and Rejections on Appeal
The following table lists the prior art relied upon by the Examiner as
evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal:
Lafon et al.
(“Lafon”) US 2003/0140252 Al July 24, 2003
Kamada et al.
(“Kamada”) US 2004/0015406 Al Jan. 22, 2004
Lee et al.
(“Lee”) US 2004/0064694 Al Apr. 1, 2004
Arditi et al.
(“Arditi”) US 2004/0093499 Al May 13, 2004
Enokida US 7,366,906 B2 Apr. 29, 2008
Myers et al.
(“Myers”) US 2009/0055642 Al Feb. 26, 2009
Claims 31 , 34—36, 38, 39, 41^49, and 51--56 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Enokida, in view of Arditi,
and further in view of Lee. (See Office Action (mailed Apr. 8, 2015) (“Non-
Final Act.”) 3-12.)
3
Appeal 2016-005592
Application 12/296,909
Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Enokida, in view of Arditi and Lee, and further in view of
Kamada. (See Non-Final Act. 12-13.)
Claims 37 and 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Enokida, in view of Arditi and Lee, and further in view of
Myers. (See Non-Final Act. 13-14.)
Claim 40 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Enokida, in view of Arditi and Lee, and further in view of
Lafon. (See Non-Final Act. 14.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action and the Examiner’s Answer
in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Non-Final Act. 3-14; Ans. 4—12.)
However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for
emphasis as follows.
“Security Server Being Arranged to Use
an Internal Digital Certificate Authority ”
With respect to claim 31, the Examiner finds that Enokida teaches or
suggests “that the certificate management apparatus acts as a certificate
authority (i.e. the claimed ‘the security server being arranged to use an
internal digital Certificate Authority’) and issues the private key and public
key certificate to the server.” (Non-Final Act. 5.) Appellants contend that
4
Appeal 2016-005592
Application 12/296,909
Enokida only deals with a safe method to substitute a root
certificate by a new root certificate on a client such that it is
certain that the new certificate originates from the correct safe
source[, therefore,] Enokida does not deal with a digital
certificate and private key management system per se.
(App. Br. 10, emphasis added.)
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred.
Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Enokida teaches or suggests
the limitation because, for example, Enokida “discloses a mutual
authentication process between a client and server using a digital certificate
and private (and public) keys.” (Ans. 5; see Enokida, FIG. 4; 23:54—57
(“FIG. 4 shows a flow chart of operations performed by the respective
apparatuses when mutual authentication according to SSL is performed
between a server apparatus and a client apparatus together with information
employed there.”) Appellants do not respond.
“transmitting to said client a private key”
“via a public communication network that is
connecting said client and said security server ”
Appellants further contend that Enokida does not show “transmitting
to said client a private key” “via a public communication network that is
connecting said client and said security server” because, according to
Appellants, “as all persons skilled in the art knew, no one would ever
transmit a private key via a public network.” (App. 10-11.) The Examiner
explains that “Enokida is not used to disclose transmission of private data
through a public network [and i]t would not be reasonable to allow claim 30
[sic] because of this feature.” (Ans. 8-9; see also Non-Final Office Act 5
(“Enokida does not explicitly disclose setting up an initial secure, encrypted
communication session between said client and a security server via a public
5
Appeal 2016-005592
Application 12/296,909
communication network that is connecting said client and said security
server.”).) According to the Examiner,
transmitting private data securely through an unsecured network
such as the Internet (i.e. a public network) is well known in the
art. Arguably, the Whole Field of Encryption is built on the idea
of protecting communications traveling through an
unsecured/public network. Many arts disclose methods of
securely transmitting private data through a public network. For
example, see paragraph [0080] of Arditi, which discloses “The
communication between the CA and the server 2 can be
encrypted if necessary” and paragraph [0002] where the network
can be the Internet (i.e. a public network). Also see Lee
paragraphs [0002], [0003], where data can be encrypted before
being sent through an insecure channel to another device, and
upon reaching the intended device, the data may be decrypted
into its original, usable form. “Therefore, cryptographic systems
are designed to provide a level of assurance that the data can be
decrypted by those intended to have the ability to do so.”
(Ans. 9, emphasis added.)
Appellants, in their Reply, present similar contention that the prior art
references neither teaches nor suggests the limitations at issue but do not
address the Examiner’s findings regarding Arditi and Lee. (Reply 2-4.)
Appellants’ contentions do not persuade us the Examiner erred because we
agree with the Examiner’s findings regarding Arditi and Lee. Moreover,
“one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” See
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
“transmitting to said client a private key ”
Appellants also contend that Arditi does not teach nor suggest
“transmitting to said client a private key.” (App. Br. 12-13.) Appellants’
contention, however, is not persuasive of Examiner error because the
6
Appeal 2016-005592
Application 12/296,909
Examiner relies on Enokida (not Arditi) for this limitation. (See Non-Final
Act. 3^4 (“As to claims 31, 47, 53-56, Enokida discloses . . . transmitting
to said client a private key . . . see Enokida col. 26 lines 57-64, col. 31 lines
48-60 and 15-20, col. 2 lines 10-25) where the certificate management
apparatus . . . issues a private key and a public key certificate to the server
(i.e. the claimed ‘transmitting to said client a private key and a digital
certificate . . Ans. 9.)
“said initial secure, encrypted communication session
using a Diffie-Hellman protocol ”
The Examiner finds that Arditi and Enokida do not teach or suggest
“said initial secure, encrypted communication session using a Diffie-
Hellman protocol,” but paragraph 23 of Lee teaches this limitation and it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the
invention to incorporate the teachings of Lee with the teachings of Enokida
and Arditi. (Non-Final Act. 7-8, emphasis added.) Appellants, however,
contend that “Lee does not disclose communicating a private key as
generated on a security server as part of a private/public key pair to a client
via a public network using a Diffie-Hellman protocol.” (App. Br. 14.)
Appellants do not contend that Lee does not teach or suggest using a Diffie-
Hellman protocol but instead contend that Lee does not teach or suggest
“communicating a private key as generated on a security server as part of a
private/public key pair to a client via a public network.” (App. Br. 14.) The
Examiner, however, is not relying on Lee for that limitation. As discussed
above, the Examiner is relaying on Lee only for using a Diffie-Hellman
protocol for communications. (Non-Final Act. 7-8; Ans. 10-11.) As further
discussed above, “one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
7
Appeal 2016-005592
Application 12/296,909
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.” See In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 31, and thus we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 31. Appellants do not make any separate, substantive patentability
arguments regarding independent claims 47 and 53-56 and dependent claims
33^46 and 48-52, but instead rely solely on the arguments raised with
respect to claim 31. (App. Br. 14—15.) Therefore, we also sustain the
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 33-56.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 31 and 33-56.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8