Brian Sprague et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 3, 2020

13354640 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 3, 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.
13/354,640 01/20/2012 Brian Sprague 4290.0040001 2065
26111 7590 01/03/2020
STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
1100 NEW YORK AVENUE, N.W.
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
EXAMINER
CASTRO, ALFONSO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/03/2020 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):
e-office@sternekessler.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRIAN SPRAGUE and CURTIS LING
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE HYUN J. JUNG, BARBARA A. BENOIT, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
JUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–4, 6–21, 24, and 25. Claims 5, 22,
and 23 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Maxlinear, Inc.
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a system and a method. Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system comprising:
one or more circuits for use in a network device, said one
or more circuits being configured to:
pair with a particular satellite dish by retrieving, via
a coaxial cable that directly connects said network device to said
particular satellite dish, and storing, a security key uniquely
assigned to a low-noise block downconverter (LNB) of said
particular satellite dish;
receive encrypted data from said particular satellite
dish via said coaxial cable that directly connects said network
device to said particular satellite dish;
decrypt said received encrypted data utilizing said
security key.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Jeon US 2005/0289605 A1 Dec. 29, 2005
Zanaty US 2007/0028273 A1 Feb. 1, 2007
Derrenberger US 2008/0134274 A1 June 5, 2008
Austerlitz US 2008/0263621 A1 Oct. 23, 2008
Davis US 2013/0149958 A1 June 13, 2013
REJECTION
The Appellant seeks our review of the rejection of:
claims 1–4, 7–13, 15–17, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Derrenberger, Jeon, Davis, and Zanaty; and
claims 6, 14, 18, 21, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Derrenberger, Jeon, Davis, Zanaty, and Austerlitz.
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640

3
OPINION
The Examiner’s Rejection
The Examiner determines for the recited one or more circuits being
configured to “pair with a particular satellite dish by retrieving, via a coaxial
cable that directly connects said network device to said particular satellite
dish, and storing, a security key uniquely assigned to a low-noise block
downconverter (LNB) of said particular satellite dish,” that Derrenberger
teaches “pairing LNBs with [set top boxes (“STBs”)] via Digital Satellite
Equipment Control (DiSEqC) protocol which includes authorization
information.” Final 3 (citing Derrenberger ¶¶ 22, 26, 27, 29, 40, 41, 55,
Fig. 1C). The Examiner, however, states that “Derrenberger does not
specifically disclose a security key uniquely assigned to a low-noise
downconverter (LNB) of said particular satellite dish.” Id. at 4; see also
Ans. 7 (indicating that “Derrenberger . . . does not state that an authorization
code is unique to a LNB”), 8 (stating that “Derrenberger does not disclose
that a network device stores a security key assigned to a LNB of a particular
satellite dish”).
The Examiner relies on Jeon for teaching “matching two keys (LNB
ID and a receiver key) to pair LNB and satellite receiver in order to apply a
level of security for secure presentation of content” but states that Jeon
“does not explicitly disclose that a security key of said particular satellite
dish is utilized to decrypt the received encrypted data using said security
key.” Final 4 (citing Jeon ¶¶ 31–34); Ans. 7, 12; see also id. at 5 (stating
that “the security key could be obtained from a service provider or from the
LNB as taught by Jeon”).
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640

4
The Examiner further relies on Davis for teaching that “the LNB
encrypts video content such that only [indoor units (“IDU’s”)] having
certain decryption keys will be able to decrypt the signal and access the
information contain therein.” Final 4 (citing Davis ¶¶ 45, 46). The
Examiner, therefore, determines that the combination of Derrenberger, Jeon,
and Davis teaches “pair[ing] with a particular satellite dish by retrieving, via
a coaxial cable that directly connects said network device to said particular
satellite dish, and storing, a security key uniquely assigned to a low-noise
block downconverter (LNB) of said particular satellite dish (e.g., pairing
dish/LNBs with STBs via a code).” Id. (citing Derrenberger ¶¶ 22, 26, 27,
29, 40, 41, 55, Fig. 1c; Jeon ¶¶ 21–24, 31–34).
The Examiner reasons that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to combine Derrenberger, Jeon, and Davis because Zanaty
teaches (1) a component of an LNB that encrypts a signal so that only IDU’s
with certain keys can decrypt the signal and (2) an authenticator that can be
a firmware component. Id. at 4–5. The Examiner, thus, determines that it
would have been obvious “to have a product serial number as the ID to the
antenna/dish as taught by Jeon to the system of Derrenberger to prevent pay
broadcast program being duplicated” and “to modify Derrenberger and Jeon
by further incorporating known elements of Davis . . . as suggested by
Zanaty in order to prevent pay broadcast program being duplicated by
utilizing encryption and/or scrambling of the media content to generate the
stream by using one or more keys programmed into the LNB during
installation at the end-user location and paired with a network device.” Id. at
5–6. The Examiner rejects independent claims 9 and 17 for the same
reasons. Id. at 7.
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640

5
The Appellant’s Contentions
The Appellant contends that Derrenberger does not teach “retrieving,
via a coaxial cable . . . a security key uniquely assigned to a low-noise block
downconverter (LNB) of said particular satellite dish.” App. Br. 4. In
particular, the Appellant contends that the paragraphs of Derrenberger cited
by the Examiner “do not describe receiving a uniquely assigned security key
via a coaxial cable to an LNB.” Id. at 4–5. According to Appellant,
“Derrenberger teaches entering an authorization code in the set-top box
(STB), with the code being unique to the STB, not unique to an LNB” and
“the cited authorization code that is entered is not a security key for
encryption/decryption, but is instead entered by a user or technician to
transition the STB from a ‘main state’ to a ‘secondary state.’” Id. at 5;
Reply Br. 2 (arguing that the Examiner appears to ignore this recitation).
The Appellant also argues that “Jeon teaches sending a receiver ID to
an LNB, with the LNB being activated if the ID received at the LNB is the
same as one stored on the LNB” and thus, “this ID is not used to
decrypt/encrypt signals and is not received from an LNB.” App. Br. 5–6;
see also Reply Br. 2 (arguing that Jeon’s “ID is not received via the coaxial
cable that directly couples the dish to the network device, as required by
claim 1”).
The Appellant further argues that Davis does not overcome the
deficiencies of Derrenberger and Jeon because the paragraphs of Davis cited
by the Examiner “only states that indoor units with ‘a certain decryption
key’ will be able to decrypt content, not that a security key of said satellite
dish is utilized to decrypt the received encrypted data.” App. Br. 6; see also
Reply Br. 6 (arguing that “Davis . . . does not describe receiving such key”).
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640

6
Regarding Zanaty, the Appellant states that the “cited language
merely says that the ‘authenticator’ of Zanaty can associate the client device
with encrypted data packets, and does not overcome the deficiencies
described above.” App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 6 (“It is unclear how this
language referring to transmission via a WEP protocol supports changing the
different authentication procedures of Derrenberger, Jeon, and Davis to that
of Appellant’s claim 1, simply because it state ‘any other private keys that
allow communication with each LNB.’”).
The Applied References
Derrenberger relates “to video distribution systems including co-
located set-top boxes.” Derrenberger ¶ 2. Video distribution system 20 can
include antennae 20, LNB 24, STBs 36, 38, and communication links, such
as coaxial cables between those components. Id. ¶¶ 19, 20. Derrenberger
also describes “conventional conditional access (CA) system(s) may be used
to restrict operation of one or more of the STBs 36, 38 in a conventional
manner.” Id. ¶ 20.
Turning to Jeon, the Examiner cites paragraphs 21–24 and 31–34.
Final 4. Jeon teaches an intelligent LNB that provides its signal only if the
identification (“ID”) of the LNB matches the ID of a satellite receiver. Jeon
¶¶ 3, 14. Paragraphs 21–24 describe that the intelligent LNB has at least ID
memory 21 for storing an LNB ID and an ID receiver for obtaining a
receiver ID. Paragraphs 31–34 describe processor 140 comparing the LNB
ID with receiver ID, and “if the LNB ID ID2 and the receiver ID ID1 are the
same, the LNB operation is turned on to provide the frequency-down-
converted IF signal to the satellite.”
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640

7
The Examiner also cites paragraphs 45 and 46 of Davis. Final 4.
Davis “relates generally to the connection of a satellite antenna to multiple
indoor units (IDUs) . . . by means of a local area network (LAN).” Davis
¶ 2. Paragraph 45 of Davis describes LNB 13 receiving a signal that is sent
to signal processing and encryption unit 44 that “may encrypt the digital
baseband signal, such that only IDUs having a certain decryption key will be
able to decrypt the signal and access the information contained therein.”
The Examiner supports the reason to combine Derrenberger, Jeon, and
Davis by citing paragraphs 54–60 and Figures 7 and 8 of Zanaty. Final 4–5.
Zanaty provides “computer controlled wireless interface techniques for
communication between a direct broadcast satellite dish and at least one
display device.” Zanaty ¶ 4. Paragraph 54 of Zanaty describes a wireless
transverse with encryptor/decryptor 710 and authenticator 720 for wireless
security protection and authentication. The remaining paragraphs describe
different modes of security protection and authentication, a separate
firmware component for adding wireless multimedia, the data packet shown
in Figure 8, implementing components in hardware, improved mobility
through wireless interface, and modifying the described embodiments
without departing from the scope of the invention. The data packet contains
a security field that may include wireless equivalent privacy (“WEP”) keys.
Id. ¶ 57.
Analysis
The relied-upon portions of the cited references do not teach or
suggest “one or more circuits for use in a network device” that “pair with a
particular satellite dish by retrieving, via a coaxial cable that directly
connects said network device to said particular satellite dish, and storing, a
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640

8
security key uniquely assigned to a low-noise block downconverter (LNB)
of said particular satellite dish,” as recited by claim 1. The Examiner states,
and we agree, that “Derrenberger does not specifically disclose a security
key uniquely assigned to a low-noise downconverter (LNB) of said
particular satellite dish.” Final 4. Derrenberger, thus, does not teach or
suggest “retrieving, via a coaxial cable that directly connects said network
device to said particular satellite dish . . . a security key uniquely assigned to
a low-noise block downconverter (LNB).”
The relied-upon portions of Jeon, at best, teach storing an ID of the
LNB, not a security key. We agree with the Appellant that Jeon, as applied
by the Examiner, does not teach or suggest “retrieving, via a coaxial cable
that directly connects said network device to said particular satellite dish . . .
a security key uniquely assigned to a low-noise block downconverter
(LNB)” because Jeon teaches an LNB receiving the ID of a receiver, not the
LNB sending an encryption key to the receiver. See App. Br. 5–6; Jeon
¶¶ 21–24, 31–34; see also Ans. 12 (stating that “Jeon does not explicitly
disclose that the unique security key is used by one or more circuits of a
network device to decrypt any received encrypted data utilizing said security
key”).
The relied-upon portions of Davis teach encrypting and decrypting
signals from a satellite dish, but they do not teach or suggest “retrieving, via
a coaxial cable that directly connects said network device to said particular
satellite dish . . . a security key uniquely assigned to a low-noise block
downconverter (LNB).” In particular, we agree with the Appellant that
Davis teaches IDUs that already have a decryption key, and thus, does not
teach or suggest receiving a decryption key from some other component.
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640

9
See App. Br. 6; Davis ¶ 45; see also Ans. 13 (stating that “Davis does not
explicitly disclose how the IDU obtains an encryption/decryption key”).
The relied-upon portions of Zanaty teach encrypting and decrypting
wireless signals from a satellite dish and sending WEP keys via a data
packet with the encrypted data. Zanaty, as applied by the Examiner,
however, does not teach “retrieving, via a coaxial cable that directly
connects said network device to said particular satellite dish . . . a security
key uniquely assigned to a low-noise block downconverter (LNB).” The
WEP keys of Zanaty do not teach or suggest “a security key uniquely
assigned to a low-noise block downconverter (LNB)” and, instead, teach a
key from a wireless transverse. See Zanaty ¶¶ 54, 57.
The Examiner’s reason for modifying Derrenberger in view of Jeon,
Davis, and Zanaty also does not arrive at “retrieving, via a coaxial cable that
directly connects said network device to said particular satellite dish . . . a
security key uniquely assigned to a low-noise block downconverter (LNB).”
Final 5–6 (stating “it would have been obvious . . . to have a product serial
number as the ID to the antenna/dish as taught by Jeon to the system of
Derrenberger to prevent pay broadcast program being duplicated” and “to
modify Derrenberger and Jeon by further incorporating known elements of
Davis . . . as suggested by Zanaty in order to prevent pay broadcast program
being duplicated by utilizing encryption and/or scrambling of the media
content to generate the stream by using one or more keys programmed into
the LNB during installation at the end-user location and paired with a
network device”).
The Examiner’s proposed modification would result in the satellite
dish and LNB of Derrenberger having an ID based on a serial number and an
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640

10
LNB that encrypts a signal for a paired network device. See id. The
Examiner’s reason for combining the references also does not address
adequately why one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the
signals conveyed by coaxial cables in Derrenberger so that those coaxial
cable signal are encrypted in the manner of wireless communications. See
id.
For the reasons above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and its dependent claims 2–4, 7, and 8 as being unpatentable over
Derrenberger, Jeon, Davis and Zanaty.
The Appellant asserts that the rejection of independent claims 9 and
17 as being unpatentable over the same combination of references should be
reversed for the same reasons set forth for claim 1. App. Br. 7. Because
independent claims 9 and 17 recite a similar limitation to the one we
determine is not taught, suggested, or rendered obvious by the cited
references, we likewise do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 9 and 17 and their dependent claims 10–13, 15, 16, 19,
and 20.
Turning to the rejection of claims 6, 14, 18, 21, 24, and 25 as being
unpatentable over Derrenberger, Jeon, Davis, Zanaty, and Austerlitz, the
Examiner relies on Austerlitz for teaching a one-time-programmable
memory, internet protocol network, and one or more circuits integrated on a
common substrate with satellite dish circuitry. Final 8 (citing Austerlitz
¶ 90), 9 (citing Austerlitz ¶ 36), 10 (citing Austerlitz ¶ 49). The cited
portions of Austerlitz do not overcome the deficiencies of Derrenberger,
Jeon, Davis, and Zanaty regarding “retrieving, via a coaxial cable that
Appeal 2018-000564
Application 13/354,640

11
directly connects said network device to said particular satellite dish . . . a
security key uniquely assigned to a low-noise block downconverter (LNB).”
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of 6, 14, 18, 21,
24, and 25 as unpatentable over Derrenberger, Jeon, Davis, Zanaty, and
Austerlitz.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–4, 6–21, 24, and 25 is reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–4, 7–13,
15–17, 19,
20
103 Derrenberger,
Jeon, Davis,
Zanaty
1–4, 7–13,
15–17, 19,
20
6, 14, 18,
21, 24, 25
103 Derrenberger,
Jeon, Davis,
Zanaty, Austerlitz
6, 14, 18,
21, 24, 25
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 6–21,
24, 25
REVERSED