Ex Parte Hofrichter et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 23, 201511490421 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/490,421 07/19/2006 Klaus Hofrichter 80398.P456C 2360 8791 7590 02/23/2015 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/23/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KLAUS HOFRICHTER and ADAM BROWNSTEIN ____________________ Appeal 2012-010300 Application 11/490,421 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 78–92. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2012-010300 Application 11/490,421 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates “to a system and method for storing and processing data for display on a display device.” (Spec. ¶ 1.) Claim 78 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 78. A system comprising: a storage system coupled to a computer system through a first connection that is a universal serial bus connection, the first connection comprising a content connection and a control connection, and to a television through a second connection, the computer system comprising a digital display device, wherein the storage system receives encoded data from the computer system through the content connection, stores the encoded data, converts the encoded data into a plurality of signals, transmits the plurality of signals to the television through the second connection, and prevents retrieval of the encoded data stored on the storage system by the computer, and wherein operation of the storage system is controlled by input signals received through the control connection from a user of the television. REJECTION Claims 78–92 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Lewis (US 2005/0144641 A1; June 30, 2005), Naiff (US 5,982,363; Nov. 9, 1999), and Boyle (US 7,206,497 B1; Apr. 17, 2007). ISSUE Does the Examiner’s combination of Lewis, Naiff, and Boyle teach or suggest “prevent[ing] retrieval of the encoded data stored on the storage system by the computer” as recited in claim 78? Appeal 2012-010300 Application 11/490,421 3 ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner’s combination of Naiff, Lewis, and Boyle does not teach or suggest the limitation at issue. In particular, Appellants assert (1) Naiff “does not contemplate a computer accessing stored content from another device”; (2) Lewis “disclose[s] some type of access to the stored content”; and (3) Boyle “discloses allowing retrieval of data from [a] digital video recorder.” 1 We disagree. Appellants essentially contend the term “prevent” requires precluding any access to the recited encoded data by the claimed computer. But the plain and ordinary meaning of “prevent” encompasses “[t]o preclude, stop, or hinder,” 2 and Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or argument that compels us to construe “prevent” more narrowly. As found by the Examiner, Lewis teaches copyright protection mechanisms that, among other things, restrict a system’s access to encrypted data outside a rental period. 3 This teaching at the very least suggests hindering a system’s access to encrypted data. The Examiner found Lewis’s teachings, along with the teachings of Naiff and Boyle, suggest the 1 (App. Br. 8–9.) 2 Prevent Definition, OED Online, Oxford University Press., http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/151073?rskey=TGoVOk&result=2&isAdva nced=false (last visited February 02, 2015) (emphasis added). See also Prevent Definition, Merriam-Webster.com, http://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/prevent (last visited February 02, 2015) (“to hold or keep back : hinder, stop —often used with from”). 3 (See, e.g., Lewis ¶ 35 (“[T]he data is received and stored on the built-in storage device . . . . The data may be received in a scrambled or encrypted format, and may have either content or access restrictions . . . . For example, in a rental or purchase transaction . . . the local VPR/DMS . . . retain[s] rental control information . . . to restrict the use of downloaded data past the[,] or prior to[,] [the] negotiated rental period.”) (emphases added).) Appeal 2012-010300 Application 11/490,421 4 “prevents” limitation recited in claim 78, 4 and Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner’s conclusion is erroneous. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 78. Because Appellants have not presented separate arguments concerning claims 79–92, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 78–92. 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 kis 4 (Ans. 5–7.) Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation