Ex Parte Amodeo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 17, 201511360927 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte GUILLERMO O. AMODEO, ELIZABETH W. CAMERON, GAVIN M. CAMERON, and MANJIT S. SAGGU ____________ Appeal 2012-006895 Application 11/360,927 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL SUMMARY Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–12, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. Claims 13–15 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Lenovo Corporation. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2012-006895 Application 11/360,927 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants describe the claimed invention as follows: A method for providing mobile subscription content access is disclosed. Initially, subscription contents are stored in a server. The subscription content can be accessed via any terminal coupled to the server by a communication link. In response to an access to any of the subscription contents on an encrypted subscription channel via a terminal, a determination is made as to whether or not a valid receiver is found in the proximity of the terminal. If a valid receiver is found in the proximity of the terminal, an encryption/decryption key is transferred to the valid receiver. With the encryption/decryption key, the subscription contents on an encrypted subscription channel can be accessed via the terminal and the valid receiver. See Abstract. Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims. Representative Claim Claim 1, which is representative,2 reads as follows: 1. A method for providing mobile subscription content access to a subscriber, said method comprising: storing subscription contents in a server, wherein said subscription content can be accessed via a plurality of terminals coupled to said server by a communication link; in response to an attempt by a receiver to access any of said subscription contents on an encrypted subscription channel via a wireless connection to one of said plurality of terminals, determining at said one terminal whether or not said receiver is a valid receiver; and 2 Appellants argue claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, and 11 together. See Appeal Br. 4–7. Appeal 2012-006895 Application 11/360,927 3 in a determination that said receiver is a valid receiver, wirelessly transferring an encryption/decryption key by said one terminal to said valid receiver, wherein said encryption/decryption key permits said valid receiver to access said subscription contents on said encrypted subscription channel via said one terminal. References Khedouri US 2006/0008256 A1 Published Jan. 12, 2006 Finn US 2006/0208066 A1 Published Sep. 21, 2006 Friedman US 7,540,015 B2 May 26, 2009 Kuz US 7,953,871 B2 May 31, 2011 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khedouri and Kuz. Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khedouri,Kuz and Finn. Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Khedouri, Kuz and Friedman. Issue on Appeal Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief3 and Reply Brief present us with the following issue: 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Kuz teaches the limitations “determining at said one terminal whether or not said receiver is 3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed on Jan. 11, 2012 (“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on Feb. 13, 2012 (“Ans.”), Appellants’ Reply Brief, filed on Mar. 19, 2012 (“Reply Br.”), and the original Specification, filed on Feb. 23, 2006 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-006895 Application 11/360,927 4 a valid receiver” and “in a determination that said receiver is a valid receiver, wirelessly transferring an encryption/decryption key by said one terminal to said receiver,” as recited in claim 1? 2. Have Appellants waived the arguments first raised in the Reply Brief in regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 10, and 12? ANALYSIS Issue 1 Appellants contend Khedouri and Kuz do not teach the limitations “determining at said one terminal whether or not said receiver is a valid receiver” and “in a determination that said receiver is a valid receiver, wirelessly transferring an encryption/decryption key by said one terminal to said receiver,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4–6. Appellants also contend “the Examiner’s interpretation of Kuz’s server as the claimed terminal in Claim 1 would conflict with the claimed server in Claim 1.” Id. at 6. The Examiner finds that Kuz teaches the “determining” and “transferring” steps of claim 1 and that there is no conflict with claim 1 as argued by Appellants. See Ans. 12–13. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Kuz teaches a server for controlling access by a mobile device to a data service (mobile access control server 120) and a content server 130, through which one or more data services may be provided using data in encrypted form. Id. at 12; Kuz Figure 1 and 5:35–46. As the Examiner finds, upon receiving an access request from a mobile device, the mobile access control server determines Appeal 2012-006895 Application 11/360,927 5 whether the mobile device is allowed access to the requested data service. See id. 12–13; Kuz 3:46–49, Figure 3 at 312. The Examiner further finds “the mobile access control server acts as the claimed ‘terminal’ in determining if the mobile device is a valid receiver.” Id. at 13. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Kuz teaches the claimed “determining” step because the mobile access control server performs the claimed function of the terminal of determining whether the mobile device is a valid receiver. We disagree with Appellant’s argument that interpreting the mobile access control server as the claimed “terminal” conflicts with claim 1. Claim 1 distinguishes between a “server,” which stores subscription contents, and a “terminal,” which determines whether a receiver is a valid receiver. Thus, there is no conflict because, like claim 1, Kuz distinguishes between a device (the mobile access control server) that performs the function of the claimed “terminal” to determine whether a receiver is a valid receiver and a “server” (the content server) that stores data. The Examiner further finds Kuz teaches the “transferring” step of claim 1 because Kuz discloses the mobile access control server providing “access information” to the mobile device, i.e., the receiver, after determining the validity of the device, which information includes a session key. See id.; Kuz 3:57–65. We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Issue 2 Appellants assert the combination of Khedouri, Kuz, and Finn does not make the step of “said determining further includes checking for a valid smartcard in said receiver” in claims 4 and 10 obvious. See Reply Br. 2. Appellants also assert the combination of Khedouri, Kuz, and Friedman does not make the step of “said determining further includes checking biometrics Appeal 2012-006895 Application 11/360,927 6 of a holder of said valid receiver to verify the identity of said holder” in claims 6 and 12 obvious. Id. Appellants did not present the arguments directed to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 10, and 12 in the Appeal Brief. Instead, they are raised for the first time by Appellants in the Reply Brief. Thus, as the Examiner has not been provided a chance to respond, and in the absence of a showing of good cause by Appellants, these arguments are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011) (second sentence); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[p]roperly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”). Appellants have made no showing of good cause in this record. Accordingly, we do not consider Appellants new arguments in the Reply Brief concerning claims 4, 6, 10, and 12, and we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12 is affirmed. 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)(iv). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation