HUAWEI TECHNOLOGIES CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 30, 2021

2020002029 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2021)

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.
15/927,873 03/21/2018 Na LI 210167.0056.7 (P054) 7210
142839 7590 06/30/2021
WOMBLE BOND DICKINSON (US) LLP /Huawei
Attn: IP Docketing
P.O. Box 7037
Atlanta, GA 30357-0037
EXAMINER
HTUN, SAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2021 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):
IPDocketing@wbd-us.com
KGSPatents@wbd-us.com
aipatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte NA LI, JINGXUE ZHONG, WEIWEI ZHONG, and JING CHEN
____________________

Appeal 2020-002029
Application 15/927,8731
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, BETH Z. SHAW, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention is an access method, device, and system for user
equipment (UE). The method, performed by a first network device, includes
receiving, by using a second network device on a non-3GPP network, an
access request message from the UE, and generating a first NAS verification
code according to an identifier of the UE and a NAS security context of the

1 Appellant states that the real party in interest is Huawei Technologies Co.,
Ltd. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002029
Application 15/927,873

2
UE stored in the first network device. If the access request message includes
a second verification code, the method detects whether the second NAS
verification code is the same as the first NAS verification code. If the second
NAS verification code is the same as the first, an access key of the non-
3GPP network is sent to the second network device. Abstr.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. An access method for a user equipment (UE), the
method comprising:
receiving, by a first network device on a 3rd
Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) network, wherein the
first network device uses a second network device on a non
3rd Generation Partnership Project (non-3GPP) network, an
access request message from the UE, wherein the access
request message comprises an identifier of the UE;
generating, by the first network device, a first non-
access stratum (NAS) verification code based on the
identifier of the UE and a NAS security context of the UE
that is stored in the first network device;
when the access request message comprises a second
NAS verification code, detecting, by the first network
device, whether the second NAS verification code is the
same as the first NAS verification code, wherein the second
NAS verification code is a verification code that is generated
by the UE based on a NAS security context stored in the UE;
and
when the second NAS verification code is the same
as the first NAS verification code, sending, by the first
network device, an access key of the non-3GPP network
to the second network device.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:
Appeal 2020-002029
Application 15/927,873

3
Name Reference Date
Mukherjee US 2009/0042576 A1 Feb. 12, 2009
Suh US 2010/0115275 A1 May 6, 2010
Janakiraman US 2012/0159151 A1 June 21, 2012

Claims 1–4, 6–8, 10–13, 15–18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Janakiraman and Mukherjee.
Claims 5, 9, 14, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Janakiraman, Mukherjee, and Suh.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Oct. 29, 2019), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan.
15, 2020), the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 21, 2019), and the
Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed May 30, 2019) for their respective details.
ISSUES
1. Does the combination of Janakiraman and Mukherjee teach or
suggest detecting, by a first network device, whether a second NAS
verification code is the same as the first NAS verification code, said second
verification code being generated by user equipment UE and being received
by the first network device from the UE?
2. Does the combination of Janakiraman and Mukherjee teach or
suggest generating, by user equipment UE, an access request message that
comprises a NAS verification code, and sending said access request message
to a first network device on a 3GPP network using a second network device
on a non-3GPP network?

ANALYSIS
Appeal 2020-002029
Application 15/927,873

4
Claims 1–4, 11–13, and 15
Independent claim 1 recites, in pertinent part,
generating, by the first network device, a first non-access
stratum (NAS) verification code based on the identifier of the
UE and a NAS security context of the UE, and
when the access request message comprises a second
NAS verification code, detecting, by the first network device,
whether the second NAS verification code is the same as the
first NAS verification code, wherein the second NAS
verification code is a verification code that is generated by the
UE based on a NAS security context stored in the UE.
The claim recites that the first network device receives the claimed
access request message from the UE.
Independent claim 11 recites parallel limitations.
The Examiner finds that Janakiraman teaches such first NAS
verification code generation. “[U]sing authentication vectors, MME 105
engage the AKA procedure toward UE 104; in 204 of Fig. 2, KSI is a
security context and authentication parameter such as a shared secret key
KASME is verification code.” Final Act. 4; Janakiraman ¶ 24. The Examiner
sharpens the factual findings in the Answer, finding that the KeNB keys
correspond to the first NAS verification code and second NAS verification
code. Ans. 4–5; Janakiraman ¶¶ 56, 57, 60.
Appellant argues, and we agree, that in order for the Examiner’s
interpretation of Janakiraman to correspond to the claimed invention,
Janakiraman must teach that a first KeNB key (corresponding to the first NAS
verification key) is generated by a network device; that a second KeNB key
(the second NAS verification key) is received from another device; and that
the first KeNB key and second KeNB key are compared to determine whether
they are the same key. Reply Br. 6–7.
Appeal 2020-002029
Application 15/927,873

5
We have reviewed Figures 2 and 5 of Janakiraman, and the pertinent
paragraphs of Janakiraman relied upon by the Examiner in the Final Action
and the Examiner’s Answer. Contrary to the Examiner’s findings, we do not
find a teaching of an access request from user equipment UE (104, 51) that
includes such a KeNB key. Ans. 4–5; Janakiraman Figs. 2, 5; ¶¶ 56, 57, 60.
Appellant further argues that, to meet the claim, Janakiraman must
teach that NAS message 201 includes a KeNB key. Reply Br. 7. Appellant
contends, and we agree, that Janakiraman lacks any teaching or suggestion
that NAS message 201 includes a KeNB key.
The Examiner interprets the claim language to mean that generating
two keys using the same KASME key corresponds to detecting whether a
second NAS verification code is the same as a first NAS verification code.
Ans. 4; Reply Br. 7. We do not agree with the Examiner’s interpretation;
rather, we agree with Appellant that generating a key does not necessarily
correspond to anything being “detected.” Reply Br. 7. As noted by
Appellant, generating two keys using the same KASME key does not allow a
device to detect whether the two keys are the same. Id.

We determine that the combination of Janakiraman and Mukherjee
fails to teach or suggest all the limitations of independent claims 1 and 11.
We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1–4,
11–13, and 15.
Claims 5 and 14
Dependent claims 5 and 14 stand rejected over Janakiraman,
Mukherjee, and Suh. The Examiner does not find that Suh remedies any of
the deficiencies of Janakiraman, discussed supra with regard to independent
Appeal 2020-002029
Application 15/927,873

6
claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 5 and 14, for the reasons expressed supra with respect to
the rejection of independent claims 1 and 11.
Claims 6–8, 10, 16–18, and 20
Claim 6 requires generating, by the UE, an access request message,
which includes a NAS verification code based on a NAS security context
stored in the UE. Independent claim 16 recites analogous limitations.
The Examiner finds that the KeNB key in Janakiraman corresponds to
the first (and second) NAS verification code. Ans. 4–5. The Examiner finds
that Janakiraman teaches the UE “respond[ing] back with a security
complete message ciphered with the new EPS security context.” Ans. 6;
Janakiraman ¶ 54 (sic, 52). We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding
that this teaching corresponds to what is claimed. We find that security
complete message 504 of Janakiraman is sent BEFORE initial context setup
request 509, which includes KeNB, is sent from MME 53 to eNodeB 52.
Fig. 5. Moreover, security complete message 504 is sent from HSS 54, not
from UE 51 as the claim requires. Id. The Examiner further cites to
paragraphs 56 and 59 of Janakiraman in support of a finding that the UE
sends an access request message comprising a NAS verification code. Ans.
6–7. We disagree with the Examiner. Neither cited paragraph 56 nor
paragraph 59 of Janakiraman discloses a NAS verification code (i.e., KeNB)
as part of an access request message generated by user equipment UE.
Because the combination of Janakiraman and Mukherjee does not
teach or suggest all the limitations of independent claims 6 and 16, we do
not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 6–8, 10, 16–18, and 20.
Claims 9 and 19
Appeal 2020-002029
Application 15/927,873

7
Dependent claims 9 and 19 stand rejected over Janakiraman,
Mukherjee, and Suh. The Examiner does not find that Suh remedies any of
the deficiencies of Janakiraman, discussed supra. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 9 and 19, for the reasons
expressed supra with respect to the rejection of independent claims 6 and 16.
CONCLUSIONS
1. The combination of Janakiraman and Mukherjee does not teach or
suggest detecting, by a first network device, whether a second NAS
verification code is the same as the first NAS verification code, said second
verification code being generated by user equipment UE and being received
by the first network device from the UE.
2. The combination of Janakiraman and Mukherjee does not teach or
suggest generating, by user equipment UE, an access request message that
comprises a NAS verification code, and sending said access request message
to a first network device on a 3GPP network using a second network device
on a non-3GPP network.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20 is reversed.
Appeal 2020-002029
Application 15/927,873

8
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/
Basis
Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 6-8,
10–13,
15–18, 20
103 Janakiraman,
Mukherjee
1–4, 6–8,
10–13,
15–18, 20
5, 9, 14, 19 103 Janakiraman,
Mukherjee, Suh
5, 9, 14, 19
Overall
Result
1–20

REVERSED