Ex Parte Maegawa et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 3, 2007

09148832 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 3, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte HIROTOSHI MAEGAWA, HIDEYASU KARASAWA, and
MASAHARU TAKANO
____________

Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832
Technology Center 3600
____________

Decided: July 3, 2007
____________

Before HUBERT C. LORIN, LINDA E. HORNER, and ANTON W. FETTING,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HORNER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 2-52, which is all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).

SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is to a network system capable of distributing
desired information in a desired format via the network (Specification 1:7-9).
Claim 52, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal.
52. A network system for suitably distributing any
content as transactable product, comprising:
one or more data server means and utilization
means, and transaction management means comprised on
the network system, wherein
said data server means transmits to said data
utilization means a data package (information package)
which includes data relating to a transaction which is
composed of content materials and/or references to
content materials and the attribute data which define an
attribute of said data relating to the transaction;
said data server means produces the data package
in which the data relating to the transaction and the
attribute has a format defining a boundary in accordance
with an attribute for the transaction and the scope of data
to be used for the transaction, and supplies the produced
Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832

3
data package to said utilization means through the
network;
said data utilization means receives the supplied
data package, and utilizes the supplied data package in
accordance with the boundary of the received data
package; and
said transaction management means perform
processing relating to the transaction on the basis of the
boundary of the package every time the data package is
received said data utilization means.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Ginter US 5,892,900 Apr. 6, 1999
Appellants seek our review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-52 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ginter.

ISSUE
The issue before us is whether the disclosure of Ginter anticipates
claims 2-52, and more particularly, whether Ginter’s “rules and controls” use a
format to set boundaries in accordance with attributes for a transaction and the
scope of data to be used for the transaction.

Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832

4
FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. Ginter relates to “systems and techniques for secure transaction
management,” and to “computer-based and other electronic appliance-based
technologies that help to ensure that information is accessed and/or
otherwise used only in authorized ways.” (Ginter, col. 1, ll. 9-14.)
2. Ginter also relates to “systems and methods for protecting rights of various
participants in electronic commerce and other electronic or electronically-
facilitated transactions.” (Ginter, col. 1, ll. 17-20.)
3. Ginter discloses a “virtual distribution environment” (VDE) that secures,
administers, and audits electronic information use (Ginter, col. 2, ll. 19-22).
The VDE allows electronic arrangements to be created involving two or
more parties including means for secure electronic content distribution
(Ginter, col. 8, ll. 20-26).
4. Ginter discloses that the content may include “commercially distributed
electronic information such as reference databases, movies, games, and
advertising” (Ginter, col. 8, ll. 27-32).
5. Ginter discloses that the content creator, distributor, and/or client
administrator can enforce control information for each property, which can
determine, for example: (1) How and/or to whom electronic content can be
provided; (2) How one or more objects and/or properties, or portions of an
object or property, can be directly used; (3) How payment for usage of such
content and/or content portions may or must be handled; and (4) How audit
Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832

5
information about usage information related to at least a portion of a
property should be collected, reported, and/or used. (Ginter, col. 46,
ll. 5-27).
6. Ginter also discloses the format of a generic logical object structure data
package in Figure 17 (Ginter, col. 134, ll. 15-28), and discloses specific
embodiments of this generic data package as applied to traveling objects
(Figure 19), content objects (Figure 20), and smart objects (Figure 73).
7. Ginter discloses:
The content portion of the object is typically divided into
portions called data blocks 812. Data blocks 812 may
contain any sort of electronic information, such as,
“content,” including computer programs, images, sound,
VDE administration information, etc. The size and
number of data blocks 812 may be selected by the creator
of the property. Data blocks 812 need not all be the same
size (size may be influenced by content usage, database
format, operating system, security and/or other
considerations). Security will be enhanced by using at
least one key block 810 for each data block 812 in the
object, although this is not required. Key blocks 810
may also span portions of a plurality of data blocks 812
in a consistent or pseudo-random manner. The spanning
may provide additional security by applying one or more
keys to fragmented or seemingly random pieces of
content contained in an object 300, database, or other
information entity.
(Ginter, col. 135, l. 59 – col. 136, l. 8.) As such, Ginter discloses a data
package or “object” which contains data relating to the transaction (e.g.,
content material).
Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832

6
8. Ginter’s object may also contain permission records (PERCs):
Logical object structure 800 shown in FIG. 17 may also
include one or more PERCs 808. PERCs 808 govern the
use of an object 300, specifying methods or combinations
of methods that must be used to access or otherwise use
the object or its contents. The permission records 808 for
an object may include key block(s) 810, which may store
decryption keys for accessing the content of the
encrypted content stored within the object 300.
(Ginter, col. 135, ll. 51-58.) As such, Ginter discloses a data package or
“object” which contains attribute data (e.g., permission records).
9. The permission records within the objects describe the scope of the data that
may be accessed and therefore the boundary of the data that is accessible.
10. Each of the Ginter’s object types has a format that differs in size and content
from one another. Further, each instance of each of these objects has
variable content that results in its size and contents differing from other
instances of the same object.
11. A different size implies a different boundary. The maximum boundary of
the data is defined by the number of data blocks within the object, which
would be implicit in the identification of the object provided in the header
(Ginter, col. 135, ll. 20-24).
12. Thus, the type of object and the number of blocks are attributes for the
transaction that affect the defined boundary.

Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832

7
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2
USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 827 (1987).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend Ginter does not anticipate the claimed invention because
Ginter fails to disclose a data package having a format defining a boundary in
accordance with an attribute for the transaction and the scope of data to be used for
the transaction (Appeal Br. 19).
The Examiner found:
Ginter does disclose a network system for suitably
distributing any content as a transactable product along
with, or even separate from, the rights and controls that
specify how the content is to be used. Ginter's "rules and
controls" also define not only access rights of users, but
also uses a format to set boundaries in accordance with
attributes for a transaction and the scope of data to be
used for the transaction (Answer 10).
The Examiner pointed to Figure 19 (depicting the data structure of a traveling
object) as an example of how Ginter’s rules and controls (e.g. “boundaries”) are
specified using specific formats and structures (Answer 11).
Appellants admit that Ginter’s “rules and controls” may be in the form of a
“permissions record (PERC)” 808 which specifies the rights associated with the
VDE object 300, e.g., who can open the container 302, who can use the object’s
Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832

8
contents, who can distribute the object, and what other control mechanisms must
be active (Appeal Br. 15). Appellants also admit that Ginter’s traveling object
structure 860 includes a permissions record (PERC) 808 within a private header
804 (Appeal Br. 16). Appellants argue, however, that Ginter does not disclose a
predetermined information structure (or format) defining a boundary. Appellants
argue that Ginter appears to merely disclose generally that a “rules and control”
object may contain certain access control type data, and it does not provide a
predetermined structure or format for embedding such data (Reply Br. 7). We
disagree.
The object data structure of Ginter is equivalent to the claimed “data
package” because the data residing in the object/data package is composed of data
relating to the transaction, such as content materials (FF 7), and attribute data for
the transaction such as permission records (FF 8). The permission records within
the objects describe the scope of the data that may be accessed and therefore the
boundary of the data that is accessible (FF 9). Further, Ginter’s data package has a
format, e.g., the object data structure of Figures 17, 19, 20, and 73 (FF 6). Each of
Ginter’s object types has a format that differs in size and content from one another
and has variable content that results in its size and contents differing from other
instances of the same object (FF 10). A different size implies a different boundary
(FF 11). Thus, the type of object and the number of data blocks in the object are
attributes for the transaction that affect the defined boundary (FF 12).
Accordingly, Ginter discloses a “data package in which the data relating to the
transaction and the attribute has a format defining a boundary in accordance with
Appeal 2007-1720
Application 09/148,832

9
an attribute for the transaction and a reference to the scope of the data to be used
for the transaction.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude that Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 2-52 as anticipated by Ginter.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 2-52 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)(1)(iv) (2006).
AFFIRMED

vsh

ARENT FOX PLLC
1050 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W.
SUITE 400
WASHINGTON DC 20036