Ex Parte Courtay et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

11922441 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
11/922,441 02/04/2009 Olivier Courtay PF050110 6747
24498 7590 02/02/2017
Robert D. Shedd, Patent Operations
THOMSON Licensing LLC
4 Research Way
3rd Floor
Princeton, NJ 08543
EXAMINER
TRAN, ELLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
uspto@technicolor.com
pat. verlangieri @ technicolor.com
russell. smith @ technicolor.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVIER COURTAY,
MOHAMED KARROUMI, and ALAIN DURAND
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,4411
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—19, all the pending claims in the
present application. (Appeal Br. 1.) We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is THOMSON
LICENSING. (Appeal Br. 3.)
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to the secure measurement of round trip
time between two devices in a network. (Spec. Abstract.)
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention, as reproduced below:
1. A method of secure calculation at a first device of
time based distance to a second device in a network, comprising:
sending a first message sent to the second device;
receiving from the second device a second message sent
in response to the first message;
calculating the time distance based on the time of
transmission of the first message and the time of reception of the
second message;
receiving a further message comprising authentication
data cryptographically linked to one of: at least the first message,
at least the second message, and at least the first message and the
second message; and
verifying the authentication data.
Examiner’s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1, 3, 5, 8—10, 12—14, 18, and 19 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Karaoguz (US 2004/0059914 Al;
pub. Mar. 25, 2004). (Final Action 11—14.)
(2) Claims 2, 6, 7, 11, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Karaoguz and Overy et al. (US 2003/0220765 Al; pub.
Nov. 27, 2003; “Overy”). (Final Action 14—15.)
(3) Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Karaoguz and Okamoto (US 2005/0050327 Al; pub. Mar. 3, 2005).
(Final Action 16.)
2
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
(4) Claims 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Karaoguz and Moriyama et al. (US 2004/0198430 Al;
pub. Oct. 7, 2004; “Moriyama”). (Final Action 16—17.)
Issues
Appellants raise the following issues:
(A) Did the Examiner err in finding that Karaoguz discloses, “a
further message comprising authentication data cryptographically linked to
one of: at least the first message, at least the second message, and at least the
first message and the second message” as recited in claim 1 ?
(B) Did the Examiner err in finding that Karaoguz discloses
verifying authentication data, as recited in claim 1 ?
(C) Did the Examiner err in finding that Karaoguz discloses the first
message comprising a first cryptographic element, a second message
comprising a second cryptographic element, and authentication data
calculated based on these elements, as recited in claim 3?
(D) Did the Examiner err in finding that Karaoguz discloses “sending
a fourth message to the second device to let it know that the method has been
initiated,” and, “generating the first cryptographic element,” as recited in
claim 5?
(E) Did the Examiner err in finding that Karaoguz discloses
“validating the calculation of the time based distance to the second device
upon successful verification of the authentication data,” as recited in claim 8?
(F) Did the Examiner err in finding that Karaoguz discloses
transmission over a wired connection, as recited in claim 18?
3
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
(G) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Karaoguz
and Overy teaches or suggests waiting a predetermined time for the generation
of a cryptographic element, as recited in claim 6?
(H) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Karaoguz
and Moriyama teaches or suggests transmission over a wired connection, as
recited in claim 16?
(I) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Karaoguz
and Okamoto teaches or suggests the cryptographic elements as random
numbers, and authentication data calculated using the random numbers and
dependent on a secret, as recited in claim 4?
ANALYSIS
(A) “a further message comprising authentication data ”
The Examiner finds that Karaoguz discloses all the elements of claim
1. (Final Action 11.) Karaoguz relates to an authentication device for
authenticating a user of a wireless device and determining location
information for the user. (Karaoguz, Abstract.)
Karaoguz discloses the transmission of signals from an authentication
device to a customer device, in which the timing of the transmission of the
signals, along with other factors, is used to determine location information
for the customer, relative to the authentication device. (Karaoguz H 22—26,
Fig. 3.) This location information can be used to verify customer identity.
{Id. 36—38, Fig. 3.) Karaoguz additionally discloses that when two
wireless devices are to be in an ad hoc wireless network, each may be
integrated with authentication features and can each operate as an
4
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
authentication device (id. 141), and a first user can receive a request to
establish communication and, in the process of responding, can determine
location information for a second user (id 142). A received request from a
second user to a first user to join an ad hoc network may include the second
user’s encryption or public key, which may then be used to encrypt all
messages sent to the second user. (Id.) In subsequent steps, a challenge may
be sent, cryptographically encoded, challenging the second user to move
from the initially determined location to a new location. (Id. 145.) Once
the challenge has been completed by the second user, the second user sends
an acknowledgement message to the first user, and the first user can
determine, using the location determination procedure, whether the
challenge has been met. (Id. ]Hf 46-47.)
Appellants argue that Karaoguz does not describe the content of the
acknowledgement message sent by the challenged user (second user) and, as
such, cannot comprise “a further message comprising authentication data” as
disclosed in claim 1. (Citation)
We disagree. Appellants’ focus on the acknowledgement message of
Karaoguz in relation to the claimed “further message” is not consistent with
the Examiner’s findings. The Examiner maps certain steps whereby
Karaoguz’ first user determines the initial location of a second user to the
first and second message of the claim. (Final Action 4, 11; Answer 7—9.)
When a second (“challenge”) determination of location information for the
second user is performed using the same process, transmissions from the
first user to the second user in this process include a challenge message
encrypted using a cryptographic key. (Karaoguz || 45 46.) According to
the Examiner, this challenge message (and not the acknowledgement from
5
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
the second user) discloses the further message, and that this challenge
message is encrypted by the cryptographic key and therefore includes
authentication data which is verified. (Final Action 4; Answer 8.)
Because the Examiner cites this challenge message, rather than the
acknowledgement message sent back by the second user, as the further
message, Appellants’ arguments regarding the acknowledgement message
are inapposite.
Appellants further argue that the challenge message cannot be the
further message, because “that message is sent from the authentication
device, not received by it.” (Appeal Br. 16.) However, we note that the
claim does not require that the further message be sent from or received by a
specific one of the claimed first and second devices. As such, we are
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings that the Karaoguz challenge
message discloses the “further message” of claim 1.
(B) “verifying the authentication data ”
Still with respect to claim 1, Appellants further argue that the
“verification of the authentication data” disclosed in Karaoguz is Karaoguz’
calculation of a second location. (Appeal Br. 16.) Appellants argue that
Karaoguz’ “sending, receiving, and calculating a second time” cannot
disclose the claimed verification of the authentication data sent in a further
message, since “the reflected messages in Karaoguz do not comprise any
authentication data.” (Id. )
However, as detailed supra, the challenge message is mapped to the
“further message” and this message includes cryptographic information
which is verified (authenticated) by the second user. Therefore, we are
6
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings with respect to this claim
element.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1,
and claims 9, 10, and 14, argued on the same basis (Appeal Br. 18, 19).
Appellants’ arguments with respect to claims 2, 7, 11, 12, and 15 are based
on the same deficiencies in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection based on
Karaoguz in combination with other art (Appeal Br. 21—22), and we are
likewise not persuaded of error with respect to those claims.
(C) Claim 3
Claim 3 depends from claim 1, and further recites: “wherein the first
message comprises a first cryptographic element and the second message
comprises a second cryptographic element, and the authentication data is
calculated based on the first and the second cryptographic elements.”
Appellants argue that the challenge request of Karaoguz “is not a
cryptographic element” and that the acknowledgement returned by the
second user after moving location “is not a cryptographic message.”
(Appeal Br. 17.) At the outset, we note that the messages are claimed to
“comprise” cryptographic elements, and thus the Appellants’ argument that
the challenge request “is not a cryptographic element” is unavailing. We
also agree with the Examiner that Karaoguz discloses a first message in
which the second user sends a cryptographic key (thus disclosing a message
comprising a cryptographic element), and that second (and subsequent)
messages sent from the first user to the second user are encrypted with the
cryptographic key. (Answer 9.) Appellants assert that “[a]s already
admitted by the Examiner, Karaoguz fails to teach the authentication data”
and “those skilled in the art understand that authentication data cannot be
7
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
based on” the cryptographic elements cited by the Examiner. (Appeal Br.
17.) However, we do not see such an admission by the Examiner and agree
with the Examiner that Karaoguz discloses validation which is based, at least
in part, on cryptographic keys and data which are used to verify certain
messages.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
3. Additionally, Appellants’ arguments with respect to claim 13 are based in
part on similar grounds (Appeal Br. 18—19), and we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings (Final Action 8—9, 13; Answer 11) and are not
persuaded of Examiner error with respect to that claim.
(D) Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 3, and further comprises, “sending a
fourth message to the second device to let it know that the method has been
initiated; and generating the first cryptographic element.”
The Examiner finds that the fourth message is taught or suggested by
additional messages, citing Karaoguz at paragraph 38. (Final Action 12.)
That paragraph of Karaoguz describes how, for a customer with a location
which is determined and verified, the authentication device can send the
verified customer cryptography protocols which can be used to establish a
wireless communication session. (Karaoguz | 38.)
Appellants argue that the claimed feature “happens at the beginning of
the sequence” “implicitly.” (Appeal Br. 17; Reply 10). The Examiner,
however, finds that according to the broadest reasonable interpretation of the
claim in light of the specification, “let[ting the second device] know that the
method has been initiated” need not be the first transmission to the second
device, but may be disclosed by Karaoguz’ message initiating a challenge.
8
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
(Answer 10.) We agree with the Examiner that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim limitation does not require that the claimed fourth
message regarding transmitted knowledge of method initiation occur before
any other message, and we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 5.
(E) Claim 8
Claim 8 depends from claim 1, and further comprises: “validating the
calculation of the time based distance to the second device upon successful
verification of the authentication data.”
Appellants rely on their arguments regarding verification, addressed
supra, and additionally note that Karaoguz’ distance calculation is
performed with two messages and that the challenge initiation is not
analyzed by the validating device. (Appeal Br. 18.)
However, we agree with the Examiner that cryptographic verification
is used to validate messages exchanged between the first and second user in
Karaoguz which are used in the process of calculating location. (Appeal Br.
12.) We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings with respect to this
claim, that the time-based distance is validated cryptographically as
described in Karaoguz. (Id.) We are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
(F) Claim 18
Claim 18 depends from claim 10, and further requires “the
input/output interface is adapted to be connected to a wired connection.”
We initially note that there is no exact antecedent basis for “the
input/output interface” of the claim. The Examiner finds this to be taught in
Karaoguz’ disclosure of a wireless network connected with a LAN by wires
9
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
or cables. (Final Action 14.) Appellants argue that “it is clearly not this
interface that is used when communicating with the wireless devices.”
(Appeal Br. 19.) However, claim 18 requires only that an interface in the
claimed device is “adapted to be connected to a wired connection,” not what
is communicated over the connection, if anything, or with which devices
such communication might occur. We are therefore not persuaded of error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18, or of claim 19, argued on the same
basis.
(G) Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5, and further comprises “waiting a
predetermined time so as to give the second device time to finish the
generation of the second cryptographic element.”
The Examiner finds paragraph 27 of Karaoguz teaches the limitation
of claim 6. (Final Action 15.) In the Answer, the Examiner additionally
finds this limitation to be taught or suggested by Karaoguz’s teachings that
processing time may be considered in distance calculations. (Answer 12.)
Karaoguz teaches that the delay between sending a request and receipt of a
response may be calculated considering both transit time and processing
time AP. (Karaoguz || 28—31.) The Examiner’s finding regarding waiting
for the processing time used to generate a response stands unrebutted by
Appellants. (Reply 12.) We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 6.
(H) Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 1, and further recites: “wherein at least
one of the first message and the second message is transmitted over a wired
connection.”
10
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
The Examiner finds that Moriyama, in combination with Karaoguz,
teaches or suggests this claim limitation. (Final Action 16—17.) Moriyama
teaches a wireless connection, which is entered into after authentication over
a wired connection path occurs. (Moriyama, Abstract.)
Appellants argue that Moriyama’s wired connection would “defeat the
entire purpose” of requesting the user to change locations as an
authentication challenge, as described in the referenced embodiment of
Karaoguz. (Appeal Br. 23.) However, the Examiner finds that the first
message, in which a public key may be exchanged, according to Karaoguz,
could be exchanged in advance over a wired connection, which would teach
or suggest the claim limitation at issue. (Answer 12—13.) Additionally, the
Examiner points to the presence in the Karaoguz disclosure of a wired
network path, through which certain communications with devices may, in
part, be transmitted. (Final Action 10.) We are not persuaded that a transfer
of a public key over a wireless connection or messages exchanged in part
over wired connections would defeat the location-change challenge, and thus
are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Appellants present additional arguments for the first time in the Reply
Brief, including that “[t]he Examiner’s interpretation means that one of these
devices is the access point and the other device ... is the server on the
LAN.” These arguments, while couched as responsive to the Examiner’s
Answer, address findings and remarks which are not substantially different
from findings appearing previously in the Final Action. (Final Action 10,
16—17.) Therefore, as these arguments are made for the first time in the
Reply, with no showing of good cause, and we do not consider them. 37
C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2013); See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1474
11
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
(BPAI 2010) (Informative) (“[T]he reply brief [is not] an opportunity to
make arguments that could have been made in the principal brief on appeal
to rebut the Examiner's rejections, but were not.”).
Thus we are not persuaded of Examiner error in the rejection of Claim
16, or of claim 17, argued on substantially the same basis.
(I) Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 3, and further recites: “wherein the
cryptographic elements are random numbers and the authentication data is a
result of a function calculated using the random numbers, the function being
dependent on a secret.”
The Examiner finds that Okamoto teaches authentication using
random numbers. (Appeal Br. 16.) Based on the teachings of Okamoto, the
Examiner concludes “[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention ... to include a means to utilize
random numbers for authentication.” (Id.) While Appellants argue that
Okamoto teaches the use of only one random number, it is the combination
of the teachings of Okamoto as to the use of random numbers in a
verification process with the teachings of Karaoguz which teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation. The test for obviousness is whether the
combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the
patentee’s invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). We agree with the Examiner that
Okamoto’s disclosure regarding the use of random numbers in verification
would have taught or suggested the use of such numbers in the Karaoguz
system and thus we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 4.
12
Appeal 2016-003152
Application 11/922,441
Conclusion
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
1, 3, 5, 8—10, 12—14, 18, and 19, and the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 15, 16, and 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1,3,5, 8—10, 12—
14, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 11, 15,
16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
13