Ex Parte JeongDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 20, 201311765721 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 20, 2013) 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. 11/765,721 06/20/2007 Chang-Jin Jeong 1235-339 8029 66547 7590 12/20/2013 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER HOANG, DANIEL L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2436 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2013 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 CHANG-JIN JEONG ____________ Appeal 2012-003878 Application 11/765,721 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-003878 Application 11/765,721 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to Digital Rights Management (DRM) in a portable terminal for controlling a rights object according to a change in time zone of the portable terminal (Spec. 1:14-17). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for controlling a rights object in a Digital Rights Management (DRM) in a portable terminal, the method comprising the steps of: detecting first time zone information of a network in which the portable terminal is located at a time that the rights object for content is provided, at a time zone detection unit of the portable terminal; detecting second time zone information of a network in which the portable terminal is located at a time that the content is used, at the time zone detection unit of the portable terminal; computing an absolute time difference between the first time zone information and the second time zone information when the first time zone information is not equal to the second time zone information, at a rights object control unit of the portable terminal; and managing use authority for the content by controlling the rights object according to the absolute time difference, at the rights object control unit of the portable terminal. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Parks (US 2003/0233553 A1; published Dec. 18, 2003) and Stumpert (US 2004/0157600 A1; published Aug. 12, 2004). Appeal 2012-003878 Application 11/765,721 3 The Examiner rejected claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. 1 ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner is incorrect in finding Park discloses a difference in time zones and finding Stumpert discloses this limitation (App. Br. 7-8). The Examiner, however, finds Parks does not explicitly cite the step of using information from a secure clock to manage use authority of content by controlling the rights object according to an absolute time difference, but finds Parks’ background information discloses this (Ans.5-6). Additionally, the Examiner finds although Parks discloses determining a time difference and control access based on that determination, Parks does not teach the time difference is a difference between time zones, and relies on Stumpert for this limitation (Ans. 6). We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. The Examiner provides a detailed explanation for combining Parks and Stumpert, contrary to Appellants’ contentions (Reply Br. 3-4). Aside from generally concluding the Examiner failed to show “some suggestion or motivation” to modify the references (Reply Br. 4), Appellants have not provided reasoning or argument showing error in the Examiner’s refined position with respect to the combination of references (Ans. 9-10). Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. We conclude the weight of the evidence supports the Examiner’s ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness, and therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims and claims 2-20, not substantively argued. 1 The Examiner withdrew this rejection (Ans.8). Appeal 2012-003878 Application 11/765,721 4 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 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 ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation