Ex Parte Candelore

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2018

12454912 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/454,912 0512612009
36738 7590
ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES
4420 Hotel Circle Court
SUITE 230
SAN DIEGO, CA 92108
04/30/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Brant L. Candelore
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
200802569.02 9257
EXAMINER
LOUIE, OSCAR A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/30/2018 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):
Noelle@rogitz.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
J ohn@rogitz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRANT L. CANDELORE
Appeal2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-15 and 17-24, which are all the pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellant identifies Sony Corp. and Sony Electronics Inc. as the real
parties in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
Introduction
Appellant explains that smartcards that use encryption technology to
control access to pay-TV content are subject to intense hacking attacks by
pirates seeking to avoid paying subscription fees, using techniques such as
cloning, three musketeering, wizarding, and droning. Spec. 1:25-2:33.
Appellant discloses embodiments in which "[g]eneration of secret keys is
carried out in a smartcard for use by a receiver device's main processor, or
alternatively, decryption processing for selectively encrypted content is
carried out in the smartcard itself in order to thwart hacking and pirating of
protected video content." Abstract.
Some embodiments use the receiver's processing power along with
the smartcard to assist in thwarting hackers. Spec. 27:7-28:2. Embodiments
that support use of new smartcard decryption algorithms in legacy receivers
can pass some or all of a decryption algorithm from the smartcard to the
receiver for execution by the receiver's processor. Spec. 28: 16-27; Fig. 9.
Independent claims 1 and 12 are illustrative of the claims on appeal:
1. A decryption method, comprising:
at a video content receiver device, receiving a stream of
digital video content which is selectively encrypted such that
the digital video content contains a plurality of encrypted
segments of the digital video content that are encrypted using a
predetermined encryption method;
demultiplexing the digital video content to select the
encrypted segments;
buffering the encrypted segments of the digital video
content in a buffer memory that is accessible by a main
processor forming part of the video content receiver device;
the main processor selecting the encrypted segments of
the digital video content and sending the encrypted segments of
2
Appeal 2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
the digital video content to a smartcard over a smartcard
interface;
at the smartcard, receiving the encrypted segments of the
digital video content and decrypting the encrypted segments of
the digital video content to produce decrypted segments of the
digital video content;
the main processor receiving the decrypted segments of
the digital video content from the smartcard over the smartcard
interface; and
the main processor storing the decrypted segments of the
digital video content to the buffer memory.
12. A decryption method, comprising:
at a video content receiver device, receiving a stream of
digital video content which is selectively encrypted such that
the digital video content contains a plurality of encrypted
segments of the digital video content that are encrypted using a
predetermined encryption method;
storing the encrypted segments of the digital video
content in a memory that is accessible by a processor forming
part of the video content receiver device;
at the processor forming part of the video content
receiver device, receiving a decryption key from a smartcard;
at the smartcard passing at least a portion of the
decryption algorithm that uses the key to carry out decryption
of the encrypted segments of the digital video content to the
video content receiver device's processor;
the processor applying the key to decrypt the encrypted
segments of the digital video content using the decryption
algorithm and bypassing a hardware decryption engine that
comprises a part of the video content receiver device; and
storing the decrypted segments of the digital video
content to the memory.
App. Br. 31, 33-34 (Claims App'x).
3
Appeal 2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
Rejections & References
Claims 1, 4--7, 10, 11, and21-24 stand rejected underpre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Candelore (US 2004/0181666 Al;
Sept. 16, 2004) and Chaney (US 6,035,037; Mar. 7, 2000). Final Act. 7-21. 2
Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under§ 103(a) as
unpatentable over Candelore, Chaney, and Millard (WO 00/46994; Aug. 10,
2000). Final Act. 21-26. 3
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1 and 11
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Chaney teaches "the main
processor selecting the encrypted segments of the digital video content and
sending the encrypted segments of the digital video content to a smartcard
over a smartcard interface." Final Act. 9 (citing Chaney 3:35-37, 4:5-17,
8:57----67) (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues the Examiner errs in this
finding because, in the system of Chaney, "the unencrypted payload data is
also passed to the smart card." App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellant's argument is unpersuasive.
Before addressing Appellant's argument regarding Chaney, a review
of aspects of Candelore's disclosure is helpful. Candelore discloses a dual-
encryption system for digital television signals in which a head-end creates a
video stream by multiplexing video packets that are either unencrypted or
encrypted with one of two different encryption schemes. See Candelore
2 The Examiner erroneously omits claim 11 from the summary for this
rejection; this is a harmless error.
3 The Examiner erroneously omits claim 8 and includes claim 15 in the
summary for this rejection; this is a harmless error.
4
Appeal 2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
i-fi-f 123-25. A set-top box receives the video stream sent by the head-end,
demultiplexes it, and buffers the demultiplexed video packets into memory
for processing by a CPU. Candelore i-f 132. Appellant does not argue error
in the Examiner's finding that Candelore discloses claim 1 's requirement for
"demultiplexing the digital video content to select the encrypted segments."
See Final Act. 8 (citing Candelore i-f 125).
Chaney discloses a pay-TV receiver system that uses a smart card 180
for decrypting encrypted video content provided to the smart card under
control of the system's microcontroller 160. See Chaney Fig. 1. We agree
with the Examiner that Chaney's disclosure of a microcontroller that
controls sending encrypted video packets to the smart card teaches "the main
processor selecting the encrypted segments of the digital video content" and
sending them "to a smartcard over a smartcard interface," as recited. Final
Act. 9; Ans. 3. Selecting and sending the unencrypted packets does not
negate the fact that Chaney selects and sends the encrypted packets.
Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in finding Chaney teaches
"the main processor receiving the decrypted segments of the digital video
content from the smartcard over the smartcard interface," as recited. App.
Br. 13-14. Specifically, Appellant contends that in
Fig. 11 of Chaney, it appears that the data are output from the
smart cards through card reader 190 to transport unit 120. Fig.
1 of Chaney also appears to show that the interaction between
the processor 160 and the smart card 180 is limited to
communication with security controller 183.
Id. at 13.
This is also unpersuasive. Chaney's Figure 1 is instructive and is
reproduced below:
5
Appeal 2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
SlN
~---- -~~--~----- - ~--~-~
f ..----........................ •
: DESGRAMBtrn smmm ! ;
COOHGHER • :
180 L~·~1~: ·- --- -~-- -- -~!~L __ J
""--·i.___ _ lfil__ ,,,,,-.....l FIG. 1 I
"FIG. 1 shows, in block diagram form, a signal processing system
including a smart card that provides both entitlement processing and
descrambling .... " Chaney 3:29--31 (including an added dashed box
around all processing system components except for the smart card 180).
Appellant reads Chaney too narrowly. Separating out the smart card
180, the remainder of Figure 1, as shown in the large dashed box, is a
processing system not including the smart card. This processing system
receives "decrypted segments of the digital video content from the smartcard
over the smartcard interface," as recited by claim 1. The Examiner's finding
that these components of Chaney teach the recited "main processor" is
consistent with the expansive, non-limiting definition of "processor" in
Appellant's Specification. See Spec 6:7-11 ("The term 'processor',
'controller', 'CPU', 'Computer' and the like as used herein encompasses
both hard programmed, special purpose, general purpose and programmable
6
Appeal 2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
devices and may encompass a plurality of such devices or a single device in
either a distributed or centralized configuration without limitation."). Thus,
we discern no error by the Examiner in mapping multiple components of
Chaney's processing system to claim 1 's recited "main processor."
Appellant further argues the Examiner errs in finding Chaney teaches
"the main processor storing the decrypted segments of the digital video
content to the buffer memory," as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 14
(contending the cited portion of Chaney (10:60-11 :3; see Final Act. 9) does
not support the Examiner's finding).
Appellant's argument is again unpersuasive. Appellant's argument
overlooks that the Examiner previously relies upon Candelore for teaching
"buffering the encrypted segments of the digital video content in a buffer
memory that is accessible by a main processor forming part of the video
content receiver device." Final Act. 8 (citing Candelore i-fi-166, 132, Fig. 14,
Claim 8) (emphasis omitted). Each cited reference must be read, not in
isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a
whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981 ). Here, Candelore teaches a main processor that accesses encrypted
video packets stored in the buffer memory. As discussed above, Chaney
teaches a main processor that decrypts the video packets using a smartcard,
and further teaches storing decrypted information in memory. See, e.g.,
Chaney 10:60-11:2. In view of these teachings, Appellant's argument that
the cited art does not teach claim 1 's requirement of "the main processor
7
Appeal 2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
storing the decrypted segments of the digital video content to the buffer
memory" is unpersuasive.
Appellant also presents substantially the same arguments for claim 11
as those discussed above for claim 1. See App. Br. 15-17. These arguments
are unpersuasive for the same reasons just discussed. Appellant additionally
argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 11 by finding Candelore teaches
"demultiplexing the digital video content to select the encrypted segments,"
as recited. Id. at 17. This argument is unpersuasive. Candelore's dual-
encryption system that multiplexes encrypted and unencrypted video packets
at a head-end and then demultiplexes them at the set-top box, as discussed
supra, teaches this requirement. See Candelore i-fi-f 123-25, 132.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1 and 11. We also, therefore, sustain the rejection of dependent
claims 4--7 and 10, for which Appellant offers no argument separate from
claim 1. App. Br. 15.
Dependent Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9
Claim 2 recites:
[ t ]he method according to claim 1, wherein before the
encrypted segments of the digital video content are sent over
the smartcard interface, the main processor forming part of the
video content receiver device encrypts the encrypted segments
of the digital video content using a local key and after reception
by the smartcard, the encrypted segments of the digital video
content are decrypted with the local key.
App. Br. 31 (Claims App'x).
The Examiner finds Millard's "session key" teaches the recited "local
key" of claim 2. Final Act. 21-22 (citing Millard 2:8-10); see also Ans. 7.
Appellant contends the Examiner errs because Millard's use of a session key
8
Appeal 2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
does not teach the subject matter calling "for the main processor of the
receiver device to encrypt encrypted segments of the digital video content
with a local key and for the smartcard to decrypt ... using the local key."
App. Br. 23.
We agree with Appellant. Millard discloses encrypting a control word
stream using a "session key" before passing the control word stream to a
smart card. Millard 2:5-8. Millard teaches separately encrypting the session
key using a public key that is part of a private/public encryption scheme. Id.
at 8-10. The encrypted session key is passed to the smart card, which uses a
corresponding private key to decrypt it. Id. at 10-11. The Examiner does
not explain how or why Millard's encrypting of a session key teaches use of
a local key to "encrypt[] the encrypted segments of the digital video
content," as recited by claim 2. The only apparent suggestion of any second
level of encryption in the relied-upon disclosure of Millard is the public/
private key encryption of the session key. See Millard 2:5-12. The
Examiner does not explain how this teaches or suggests using the same local
key to perform a second level of encryption on already encrypted video
segments prior to sending them to a smart card, as recited by claim 2.
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2. We also, therefore,
do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, which depends from claim 2.
Appellant also argues claim 3 includes a requirement "for the main
processor of the receiver device to encrypt encrypted segments of the digital
video content." App. Br. 23. This is incorrect. Claim 3 recites:
[ t ]he method according to claim 1, wherein before the
decrypted segments of the digital video content are received
from the smartcard at the main processor forming part of the
video content receiver device, the smartcard encrypts the
9
Appeal 2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
decrypted segments of the digital video content with a local key
and after reception by the processor forming part of the video
content receiver device, the segments of the digital video
content are decrypted with a local key.
App. Br. 31-32 (Claims App'x). Appellant's argument is unpersuasive
because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, and, therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claim 3. We also, therefore, sustain the rejection
of claim 9, which depends from claim 3, and for which Appellant offers no
separate argument.
Independent Claims 12 and 21-24
Method claim 12 recites, inter alia, the step of "at the smartcard
passing at least a portion of the decryption algorithm that uses the key to
carry out decryption of the encrypted segments of the digital video content
to the video content receiver device's processor." App. Br. 33-34. Method
claim 21 recites a similar requirement, differing only in that the key is a
"content decryption key." Id. at 35. The Examiner relies on Chaney for
teaching this requirement. Final Act. 6, 15, 23-24 (citing Chaney 2:35-55,
3:35-37, 4:5-17, 11:40-55); Ans. 5, 7 (additionally citing Chaney 2:12-20,
11:3-15).
Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because there is "no such
disclosure [in] Chaney at the cited locations" and that Chaney "fails to make
any disclosure of passing a portion of the decryption algorithm to a receiver
device's processor." App. Br. 18; see also App. Br. 24--25; Reply Br. 3--4.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not directed us to any
disclosure in Chaney that teaches a smart card passing all or part of a
decryption algorithm to a receiver. The Examiner's findings and
10
Appeal 2016-003284
Application 12/454,912
explanations in support of the rejection provide no reasonable rationale for
how or why Chaney suggests this recited requirement.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 21. For
the same reason we do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 22-
24, which include similar limitations, see App. Br. 36-37 (Claims App'x), or
of claims 13-15 and 17-20, which depend from claim 12.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11, and we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of
claims 2, 8, 12-15, and 17-24.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
11