The DIRECTV Group, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 5, 2020

2020001076 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 5, 2020)

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.
15/724,918 10/04/2017 Raynold M. Kahn DTV205040CON1 5113
83811 7590 10/05/2020
AT&T LEGAL DEPARTMENT - TRBK
PATENT DOCKETING
ROOM 2A-212, ONE AT&T WAY
BEDMINSTER, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
COPPOLA, JACOB C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3685
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2020 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@trbklaw.com
eOfficeActionDocs@att.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RAYNOLD M. KAHN, PETER M. KLAUSS,
STEPHEN P. DULAC, DAVID N. SCHLACHT, HANNO BASSE, and
THOMAS H. JAMES
Appeal 2020-001076
Application 15/724,918
Technology Center 3600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as The DirecTV Group, Inc.
Appeal Brief 2, filed September 4, 2019 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2020-001076
Application 15/724,918

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “secure content transfer systems and
methods to operate the same.” Specification ¶ 2, filed October 4, 2017
(Spec.). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
a client device for use at a first physical location and a
second physical location; and
a media server for use at the first physical location, the
media server including:
a receiver to receive encrypted content for requested
content;
a first security device, including a first processor, to
determine a first encryption secret based on a first encryption key
received from a headend and to determine a second encryption
secret based on a second encryption key received from the
headend;
a first decrypter to decrypt received encrypted content for
requested content based on the first encryption secret to
determine decrypted content data for the requested content;
an encrypter to re-encrypt the decrypted content data for
the requested content based on the second encryption secret to
determine re-encrypted content data; and
an interface to send the re-encrypted content data to the
client device,
wherein the client device includes:
a second security device, including a second
processor, to determine the first encryption secret based on
the first encryption key received from the headend and to
determine the second encryption secret based on the
second encryption key received from the headend; and
a second decrypter to decrypt the re-encrypted
content data based on the first encryption secret and the
second encryption secret to access the requested content.
Appeal 2020-001076
Application 15/724,918

3
Appeal Brief, Claims Appendix A1 (Claims App’x).
REJECTION
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis
1–7 112 Written Description
DISCUSSION
The Examiner found that the written description lacks adequate
support for the “client device” that includes “a second decrypter to decrypt
the re-encrypted content data based on the first encryption secret and the
second encryption secret to access the requested content” recited in claim 1.
See Final Action 3–4, mailed April 30, 2019 (Final Act.); Examiner’s
Answer 3–7, mailed October 2, 2019 (Ans.). The Examiner acknowledged
that the written description describes a client device that uses first and
second encryption secrets (a codeword and a copy protection codeword) to
decrypt encrypted content data to access requested content. See Ans. 4, 6.
But the Examiner found that the written description does not disclose that
the client device decrypts the recited re-encrypted content data. See Ans. 4–
6; see also Final Act. 3–4. According to the Examiner, the written
description discloses that the client device decrypts “super-encrypted” video
data (that is, video data that has been encrypted twice), not data decrypted
based on a first encryption secret and then re-encrypted based on a second
encryption secret as required by claim 1. See Ans. 4–6.
Appellant contends that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, the
written description discloses a media server that decrypts and re-encrypts the
super-encrypted video data in the claimed manner. See Reply Brief 3–6,
filed November 25, 2019 (Reply Br.). Appellant argues that the written
Appeal 2020-001076
Application 15/724,918

4
description also discloses that the media server transmits the super-encrypted
video data to a client device that includes a decrypter that decrypts the super-
encrypted video data in the manner required by claim 1. See Reply Br. 4–6,
8.
Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As argued by
Appellant, the written description expressly discloses that “previous[ly]
super-encrypted content may be decrypted and re-super encrypted” by a
media server, Spec. ¶ 35 (reference number omitted), and that the media
server transmits super-encrypted content to a client device for decryption,
see, e.g., Spec. ¶¶ 44, 78, Fig. 27. The written description discloses that the
media server includes a decrypter that uses a codeword (a first encryption
secret) to decrypt encrypted content and an encrypter that uses a copy
protection codeword (a second encryption secret) to encrypt content. See
Spec. ¶¶ 213–217, Fig. 27. The written description thus teaches that the
super-encrypted data sent to the client device has been, at least in some
cases, decrypted based on a first encryption secret and then re-encrypted
based on a second encryption secret. And as acknowledged by the Examiner,
the written description teaches that a client device uses the codeword and the
copy protection codeword to decrypt the super-encoded video to access the
requested content. See Ans. 4, 6; see also Spec. ¶¶ 83, 214–217, 229, Fig.
27. We thus agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred.
The Examiner also found that it would be impossible for the claimed
client device to decrypt re-encrypted data based on the first and second
encryption secrets. See Ans. 4. In the Examiner’s view, “the claimed ‘re-
encrypted content data’ is formed by the media server through encryption
using only the second secret” and “the first encryption secret is only used by
Appeal 2020-001076
Application 15/724,918

5
the media server to decrypt the received ‘encrypted content.’” Ans. 4.
Therefore, according to the Examiner, the claimed system cannot decrypt re-
encrypted data based on both secrets. See Ans. 4.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erroneously read the word
“only” into claim 1. See Reply Br. 3. Appellant points out that claim 1 “does
not recite that the first decrypter decrypts received encrypted content for
requested content based ‘only’ on the first encryption secret, nor does the
claim state that the encrypter re-encrypts the decrypted content data for the
requested content based ‘only’ on the second encryption secret.” Reply Br.
3.
Appellant has persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Claim 1 does not
recite that the claimed system uses the first encryption secret only to decrypt
content or forms re-encrypted content data using only the second encryption
secret as determined by the Examiner. Instead, claim 1 recites a “system
comprising” a media server that includes a first decrypter that decrypts
received encrypted content “based on” the first encryption secret and an
encrypter that re-encrypts the decrypted content “based on” the second
encryption secret. Claims App’x A1. We thus agree with Appellant that
claim 1 does not limit use of the recited first and second encryption secrets
in the way proposed by the Examiner.
For at least the above reasons, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner erred. We therefore do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and its dependent claims for lack of written description.
Appeal 2020-001076
Application 15/724,918

6
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7 112 Written Description 1–7

REVERSED