Infineon Technologies AG

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 16, 2021

2020002324 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 16, 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. 15/437,651 02/21/2017 Friedrich Rasbornig INFAP560US 3842 51092 7590 06/16/2021 Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC. Rosetta Center 629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000 Cleveland, OH 44114 EXAMINER AYALA, KEVIN ALEXIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2436 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/16/2021 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): docketing@eschweilerlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRIEDRICH RASBORNIG Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9–11, 13–22, 24, and 25.1 See Appeal Br. 11–15 (Claims App.). The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 8. Ans. 3. Claims 3, 5, 12, and 21 have been cancelled. Appeal Br. 11, 13, and 15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Infineon Technologies AG as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter relates to communicating data from a sensor device to an Electronic Control Unit, for example, in vehicles, with improved security. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 3. For example, manipulation of sensor readings, such as the data from an antilock braking system, could result in loss of braking abilities for the vehicle. Id. ¶ 5. In the claimed subject matter, the data transmitted from the sensor device is transmitted using an encryption key. Independent claim 13 is illustrative: 13. A sensor device for communicating sensor data to an Electronic Control Unit, comprising: a key interface configured to receive a first key of the Electronic Control Unit; an encryption circuit configured to encrypt the sensor data using the first key to generate encrypted data; an output interface configured to transmit the encrypted data to the Electronic Control Unit using a wired connection; and an input interface configured to receive data and a trigger pulse from the Electronic Control Unit, wherein the output interface is configured to transmit the encrypted data to the Electronic Control Unit in response to the trigger pulse. Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.). Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 3 REFERENCES Name Reference Date Zhu US 7,512,236 B1 Mar. 31, 2009 Smith et al. (“Smith”) US 2011/0246047 A1 Oct. 6, 2011 Paddon et al. (“Paddon”) US 2012/0284511 A1 Nov. 8, 2012 Lewis et al. (“Lewis”) US 2014/0301550 A1 Oct. 9, 2014 Cadugan et al. (“Cadugan”) US 2015/0236876 A1 Aug. 20, 2015 Schwach et al. (“Schwach”) US 2016/0352520 A1 Dec. 1, 2016 REJECTIONS Claims 13–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Smith. Final Act. 3–5. Claims 1, 2, 6, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Smith and Lewis. Final Act. 5–8. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Smith, Lewis, and Zhu. Final Act. 8. Claims 7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Smith, Lewis, and Paddon. Final Act. 8–11. Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 4 Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Smith and Zhu. Final Act. 11– 12. Claims 18 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Smith and Cadugan. Final Act. 12–13. Claims 20, 21, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Smith and Schwach. Final Act. 13–15. Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combined teachings and suggestions of Smith, Schwach, and Zhu. Final Act. 15. OPINION Appellant argues that the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of the claims is in error because Smith does not disclose each element of the claims. We begin with claim 13. Claim 13 recites, inter alia, an encryption unit configured to encrypt sensor data using a key received from the Electronic Control Unit, and an output interface configured to transmit the encrypted data to the Electronic Control unit in response to a trigger pulse received from the Electronic Control Unit. The Examiner finds claim 13 to be anticipated by Smith. With respect to the disputed limitation cited above, the Examiner finds this limitation to be disclosed by Smith’s paragraph 25, which states in part: Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 5 At engine start, an exchange occurs between the ECU 12 and the pressure sensor 10 in order to verify that the correct learnt components are present. The exchange involves the ECU 12 sending a randomly generated data message to the pressure sensor 10, and the pressure sensor 10 generating a response data message using the previously learnt Key 36. The pressure sensor 10 transmits the response data message to the ECU 12 via the bi-directional data cable 14, and the ECU 12 processes the response data message using the previously stored Key 36. If the response data message matches the randomly generated data message, then the ECU 12 verifies that the Key 36 corresponds to the Key exchanged during the learning process, i.e. that the correct pressure sensor 10 is present. When the ECU 12 has verified that the correct pressure sensor 10 is present, the system commences exchanging encrypted rail pressure data. Final Act. 3–4; Smith ¶ 25. The Examiner equates the “randomly generated data message” sent to the pressure sensor to the claimed “trigger pulse.” Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that Smith’s description of the system exchanging pressure data after the trigger pulse discloses that the claimed “output interface is configured to transmit the encrypted [sensor] data to the Electronic Control Unit in response to the trigger pulse.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner finds this disclosure to meet the requirement the claim language that the encrypted sensor data to be sent “in response to” the trigger pulse. Id. Appellant argues that the data sent by Smith “in response to the trigger pulse” is not sensor data, but an encryption of the data sent in the trigger pulse, characterizing that data as a “randomly generated data message.” Appeal Br. 5–6. Accordingly, Appellant argues that Smith fails to anticipate claim 13. Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 6 We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. In the embodiment of Smith described at paragraph 25, Smith discloses receipt of a data message from the ECU that initiates a sequence of events resulting in the sensor 10 sending encrypted pressure data to the ECU. The Examiner relates the ECU’s data message to the claimed trigger pulse, and the sensor’s transmission of pressure data to the ECU as the claimed transmission of encrypted sensor data to the ECU. We agree that Smith’s transmission of encrypted sensor data to the ECU only occurs “[w]hen the ECU has verified that the correct pressure sensor” is attached; i.e., by sending a data message to the sensor (the “trigger pulse”) and receiving the correct encryption of that data message in response. Smith ¶ 25. Thus, the transmission of encrypted sensor data to the ECU will not occur unless the trigger pulse is first sent and verified. Appellant argues that only the verification from the sensor, which is not pressure data, is “in response” to the trigger pulse. Appeal Br. 5–6. However, it is the receipt of the trigger pulse sets in motion the events leading to the transmission of pressure data from the sensor. Smith ¶ 25. Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that the transmission of pressure data is “in response” to the trigger pulse. Appellant cites specifically to paragraphs 23 through 26 of the Specification for support of the “configured to transmit . . . in response to the trigger pulse” limitation. We have reviewed those paragraphs, and do not find disclosure inconsistent with the Examiner’s interpretation. Similarly, although Appellant argues that Smith’s trigger pulse does not “indicate the start of a data frame,” Appellant has not explained how claim 13 either explicitly or inherently contains such Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 7 a limitation. Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 13. Additionally, we note that the disputed claim language refers to the output interface being configured to transmit “the encrypted data” in response to the trigger pulse. We agree with Appellant that “the encrypted data” refers to the encrypted sensor data; i.e., the data encrypted by the encryption circuit using the first key in a prior phrase of claim 13. Reply Br. 2 (emphasis omitted). Appellant further argues that when Smith’s sensor transmits an encrypted form of a received data message (the trigger pulse) back to the ECU, such a data message is not “encrypted sensor data as claimed.” Id. (emphasis omitted). We are not persuaded by this argument because claim 13 does not recite, for example, “encrypted sensor pressure data,” but instead, “encrypted sensor data.” Appellant admits that the encrypted version of the trigger message is nonetheless transmitted by Smith’s sensor 10. Reply Br. 2. Appellant has not explained why the sensor’s transmission of encrypted data, is not “encrypted sensor data,” regardless whether that data is a random data message or pressure data. Nothing in claim 13, read in light of the portions of the Specification indicated by Appellant as providing description of the “in response” limitation, precludes interpreting any encrypted data sent by a sensor as describing “encrypted sensor data.” Claims 14–16 are argued together with claim 13. Appeal Br. 5–7. Accordingly, claims 14–16 fall with claim 13, and we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 13–16. Claims 1 and 2, although rejected as being obvious over Smith in view of Lewis, are argued for the same alleged deficiencies in teaching Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 8 transmitting of the encrypted sensor data from the sensor device to the Electronic Control Unit in response to the trigger pulse. Id. at 7. Claim 7, rejected as obvious over Smith in view of Lewis and Paddon, is argued solely for the same reasons. Id. at 8. Apart from claims 6 (addressed below) and 8 (rejection withdrawn), Appellant does not address any claim separately from its independent claim, and therefore no separate argument has been made against the rejections of claims 4, 7, and 11, which depend directly from claim 1, and claims 17–19, which depend directly or indirectly from claim 13. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error, and sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, and 17–19. Independent claim 20, and its dependent claims 21, 22, 24, and 25, have not been addressed in the Appeal Brief, except to request that those claims be cancelled. Appeal Br. 2. The Reply Brief does not include claims 20–22, 24, and 25 in its list of pending claims. Reply Br. 1. However, the Office had required an amended brief because “not all the Independent Claims were referenced (specifically claim 20).” Notice of Non-Compliant Appeal Brief, September 17, 2019. Further, the Final Action consistently treats these claims as rejected, in the “Disposition of Claims” of the Office Action Summary, in a separate listing of the status of the claims, and in discussion of the rejection of those claims. Final Act. 2–3, 13–15. The Examiner’s Answer does not specifically address these claims, but states that every ground of rejection in the Final Action is maintained, except for the rejection of claim 8. Accordingly, we treat claims 20–22, 24, and 25 as pending and rejected. In the absence of any argument against the rejection of these claims, we are not persuaded that the Examiner’s rejection is in Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 9 error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 20–22, 24, and 25. Appellant argues separately against the rejection of claim 6. Specifically, Appellant argues that claim 6 recites providing a first key to the sensor device and transmitting a second key from the sensor device to the ECU. Appeal Br. 8 (emphasis omitted). Claim 6 recites, in pertinent part, “transmitting a second key from the sensor device to the Electronic Control Unit; encrypting second data of the Electronic Control Unit with the second key to generate second encrypted data; and transmitting the second encrypted data from the Electronic Control Unit to the sensor device.” Appeal Br. 12 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds Smith to teach a second encryption key to encrypt data, and Lewis to teach a transmission carrying data between the sensor and ECU, where the transmission is based on a session key transmitted to sensor 1 or on a sensor key that was generated in sensor 1. Final Act. 7. The Examiner acknowledges that the key in Smith is transmitted from the ECU to the sensor, and not from the sensor to the ECU as claimed. Ans. 5. The Examiner further finds that Lewis discloses transmitting a session key (second key) from the sensor to the ECU, citing the following description in Lewis: the sensor data which are transmitted via fast data transmission channel 10, or selected parts thereof, are fed into a CMAC algorithm, which uses session key KS as the key. After a certain amount of data of the sensor data has been transmitted, a CMAC value is generated. The CMAC value is generated via all sensor data or a selected part of the sensor data. This CMAC is transmitted via slow data transmission channel 11 to ECU 2. Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 10 Ans. 5 (citing Lewis ¶ 27). Appellant argues that neither Smith nor Lewis teaches or suggests transmitting a second key from the sensor to the ECU. Reply Br. 4. Appellant points to the Examiner’s acknowledgement that Smith lacks this teaching. Id. (citing Ans. 5). Appellant further points to the Lewis’s description of the session key as being transmitted from the ECU to the sensor. Id. (citing Lewis ¶¶ 36, 40, and Fig. 1). Accordingly, Appellant argues that the Examiner’s obviousness rejection fails to teach or suggest transmitting a second key from the sensor to the ECU as claimed. Id. We are persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. The Examiner admits that Smith lacks any teaching of transmitting a second key from the sensor to the ECU. Ans. 5. The portion of Lewis cited by the Examiner describes transmitting sensor data, but does not explicitly describe transmitting the session key, and the Examiner does not provide any explanation of how the cited portion of Lewis describes transmitting the session key. We find Lewis to support Appellant’s argument that the session key is either sent from the ECU to the sensor or is generated within the sensor. Lewis ¶¶ 36, 40, and 47. Accordingly, we find no support in Lewis for the Examiner’s finding of a transmission of a session (second) key from the sensor to the ECU. Nor has the Examiner otherwise explained how the combination of Lewis and Smith would result in the transmission of a second key from the sensor to the ECU. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6. Because claims 9 and 10 depend directly from claim 6, they also Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 11 recite the same features that are not taught or suggested by the applied prior art; therefore, we reverse the rejection of claims 9 and 10.2 CONCLUSION For the above-described reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 13–16 and the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 14–22, 24, and 25 as being obvious over the applied references under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 6, 9, and 10, as detailed below. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 13–16 102(a)(1) Smith 13–16 1, 2, 6, 11 103 Smith, Lewis 1, 2, 11 6 4 103 Smith, Lewis, and Zhu 4 7, 9, 10 103 Smith, Lewis, and Paddon 7 9, 10 17 103 Smith, Zhu 17 18, 19 103 Smith, Cadugan 18, 19 20, 21, 103 Smith, Schwach 20, 21, 24, 2 We group claims 9 and 10 with claim 6 because, on their face, they contain limitations identical to those found lacking in the rejection of claim 6. Appellant has not argued against the rejection of any other claims on the same reasoning as claim 6, and therefore we have not considered whether other rejections are in error based on the same reasoning as claim 6. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2020-002324 Application 15/437,651 12 24, 25 25 22 103 Smith, Schwach 22 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4, 7, 11, 13–22, 24, 25 6, 9, 10 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART