Ex Parte Irwin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 6, 2016

11913665 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111913,665
22913 7590
Workman Nydegger
60 East South Temple
Suite 1000
08/01/2008
10/11/2016
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
James Irwin
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.
17260.17 7529
EXAMINER
JACKSON, JENISE E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/11/2016 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@wnlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAMES IRWIN and TIMOTHY JAMES WRIGHT
Appeal2015-007580 1
Application 11/913,665
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON i\.PPEi\L
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--43, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants' Brief (App. Br.) identifies Vodafone Group PLC, of Berkshire,
United Kingdom as the real party in interest. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2015-007580
Application 11/913,665
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to controlled distribution of data between
multiple devices. (Specification, p. 1, 11. 5-6.) Claim 1, reproduced below
with the disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
A method of controlling use of content data, the method
including:
receiving encrypted content data at a first device from a
content provider;
receiving decryption data at the first device from a rights
issuer for allowing decryption of the encrypted content data so
that the content data can be consumed, the decryption data
including a rights object determining at least how the content
data may be used; and
enabling a second device to consume the content data
received by the first device, the content data being consumed by
the first and second devices in a controlled manner in dependence
upon an authorization token, wherein the first device distributes
the rights object or a new rights object to the second device,
wherein the authentication token is transmitted to the first
device in a message from the rights issuer, wherein the
authentication token received by the first device is exchanged
with the second device and indicates to the second device that
the first device is trusted by the rights issuer.
(App. Br. 44.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 1--4, 11, 12, 15-18, 25-26, 29-30, 39--40, and 43 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Robert et al. (U.S.
2
Appeal2015-007580
Application 11/913,665
2009/0106850 Al, published Apr. 23, 2009)2 ("Robert '850"), in view of
Open Mobile Alliance, DRM Architecture, Draft Version 2.0 (published
March 15, 2014) ("OMA"), and further in view of Mowry et al. (U.S.
2004/0253942 Al, published Dec. 16, 2004) ("Mowry").
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Robert '850, in view of OMA, further in view of Han et al. (U.S.
200610177066, published Aug. 10, 2006) ("Han"), and further in view of
Mowry.
Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Robert '850, in view of OMA, further in view of Han, and further in
view of Mowry.
Claims 21-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Robert '850, in view of OMA, further in view of Han, further
in view of Mowry, and further in view of Robert et al. (U.S. 2005/0182727,
published Aug. 18, 2005) ("Robert '727").
Claims 5, 19, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Robert '850, in view of OMA, further in view of Mowry, and
further in view of Han.
Claims 7-10, 13-14, 27-28, and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Robert '850, in view of OMA, in view of
Mowry, and further in view of Robert '727.
Claims 31-36 and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Robert '850, in view of OMA, further in view of Mowry, and
2 We note that Robert '850 qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
virtue of its claim of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. App. Ser. No.
10/779,248, filed Feb. 13, 2004.
3
Appeal2015-007580
Application 11/913,665
further in view ofKontio et al. 3 (U.S. 2007/0112676, published May 17,
2007) ("Kontio").
Claim 37 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious
over Robert '850, in view of OMA, further in view of Mowry, further in
view of Kontio, and further in view of Hartung et al. (U.S. 2005/0172127,
published Aug. 4, 2005) ("Hartung").
ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
Did the Examiner err in finding that Mowry teaches or suggests
"wherein the authentication token is transmitted to the first device in a
message from the rights issuer, wherein the authentication token received by
the first device is exchanged with the second device and indicates to the
second device that the first device is trusted by the rights issuer," as recited
in each of independent claims 1, 6, 15, and 20?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting the independent claims, the Examiner cites paragraphs 17
and 20, finding Mowry discloses the limitation of "wherein the
authentication token is transmitted to the first device in a message from the
rights issuer, wherein the authentication token received by the first device is
exchanged with the second device and indicates to the second device that the
first device is trusted by the rights issuer," as recited in independent claim 1
and commensurately recited in independent claims 6, 15, and 20 (Final Act.
3 We note that Kontio qualifies as prior art under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) by
virtue of its claim of priority under 35 U.S.C. § 120 to U.S. App. Ser. No.
10/095,062, filed Mar. 12, 2002.
4
Appeal2015-007580
Application 11/913,665
8-9, 11, 15-18.) Appellants offer two arguments in support of their
contention that the Examiner commits error. First, Appellants argue that
Mowry does not disclose "the authentication token received by the first
device is exchanged with the second device," as recited in claim 1 because
Mowry does not teach that the "authentication token is transmitted to the
first device in a message from the rights issuer." (App. Br. 19-20.)
Appellants' second argument is Mowry also fails to disclose "the
authentication token received by the first device ... indicates to the second
device that the first device is trusted by the rights issuer." (App. Br. 21.)
We find neither argument persuasive.
Appellants emphasize claim 1 requires that the authentication token
be received by the first device from the rights issuer prior to being
exchanged with the second device. (App. Br. 21 ["However, claim 1 sets
forth that an authentication token received by the first device (from the
rights issuer) is exchanged with a second device."]) Appellants further
contend "Mowry does not disclose exchanging an authentication token with
subscriber terminal UE2140, wherein that authentication token was received
by terminal UEll 10 from rights issuer 130." (App. Br. 21.)
We disagree with Appellants and agree with the Examiner that Mowry
teaches the token is received by the first device from the rights issuer. In
paragraph 17, Mowry teaches that "[i]n FIG. 2, at block 220, the subscriber
terminal obtains a rights object associated with the encrypted content obtains
at block 210. In some embodiments, the subscriber terminal also receives an
encrypted token." Mowry i-f 17. In Figure 2 of Mowry, block 220 of Mowry
describes the step of "subscriber terminal obtains rights object & encrypted
token, e.g., from rights issuing entity." Mowry, Fig. 2. Thus, Mowry
5
Appeal2015-007580
Application 11/913,665
teaches that the encrypted token, which the Examiner equates to the claimed
"authentication token," is initially passed from the rights issuer to the first
subscriber terminal in Mowry's system.
In support of their second argument, Appellants contend the Examiner
has not persuasively demonstrated where Mowry teaches the authentication
token indicates to the second device that the first device is trusted by the
rights issuer. (App. Br. 21.) In response, the Examiner asserts Mowry
teaches the encrypted token received by the first device from the rights
issuer includes the identity of the content and the DRM package. (Ans. 4
citing Mowry i-fi-f 17, 20, and 21.) This encrypted token is sent to the second
device along with the DRM package, which in tum requests a rights object
in order to be able to use the content received. According to the Examiner,
because the second device receives from the first device, a token that was
encrypted by the rights issuer, the token provides an indication to the second
device that the first device is trusted by the rights issuer. Ans. 4.
Appellants, in the Reply Brief, further argue although the second
terminal in Mowry utilizes content received from the first terminal, it "does
not inherently mean that an authentication token provided by the first
terminal UEl 110 indicates that the terminal UEl 110 is trusted." (Reply Br.
3.) Appellants contend that because the second terminal UE2140 must
contact the rights issuer to use content received from the first terminal, there
cannot be an indication "to the second device that the first device is trusted
by the rights issuer." According to Appellants, if any assurance that the first
terminal is trusted is provided by Mowry, that assurance only comes with the
second entity contacting the rights entity. (Reply Br. 3--4.)
6
Appeal2015-007580
Application 11/913,665
We are not persuaded by Appellants' second argument, and we agree
and adopt as our own, the findings of the Examiner on this point as set forth
in the Answer. (Ans. 4--5.) We provide this additional discussion for
emphasis.
In arguing that "the second terminal UE2140 cannot use the content
without an additional step of contacting the rights issuing entity [to obtain a
rights object]," (Reply Br. 3), Appellants seem to suggest that claim 1
requires that the recited "indication of trust" requires that the second device
be able to consume the content without ever contacting the rights issuer.
However, the language of claim 1 imposes no such requirement-
Appellants are arguing limitations not recited in the claim. More
specifically, the limitation provides that the authentication token "indicates
to the second device that the first device is trusted by the rights issuer."
Mowry teaches a system implemented within the context of an Open
Mobile Alliance DRM solution. Mowry i-f 10. Mowry further teaches that
"[ m ]echanisms and protocols for exchanging consideration for content in
communications networks are well known." Id. As noted previously, in
addition to citing Mowry, the Examiner also cites, inter alia, OMA, which
describes the DRM architecture for the Open Mobile Alliance. (Final Act.
6-7.) OMA teaches that the "DRM trust model required by this
specification is based on the Public Key Infrastructure (PKI)." OMA 16.
Thus, in Mowry's implementation, the encryption of data such as the
encrypted key, for example, is performed utilizing PKI.
Because the encrypted token is encrypted using PKI, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would have readily understood, at the time the
invention was made, Mowry' s encrypted key to be encrypted using the
7
Appeal2015-007580
Application 11/913,665
public key of the first device and the private key of the rights issuer in
accordance with PK.I (as taught in both Mowry and OMA). As a result,
because the encrypted key received by the second device from the first
device is originally signed by the rights issuer, Mowry's encrypted key
provides an indication to the second device that the first device is trusted by
the rights issuer.
Appellants do not set forth any separate arguments for patentability of
the dependent claims. As such, claims 2-5, 7-14, 16-19, and 21--43 fall
with claims 1, 6, 15, and 20. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--43 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8