Ex Parte Adolph et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 25, 2014

10893183 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2014)

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.
10/893,183 07/16/2004 Dirk Adolph PD030078 4219
24336 7590 02/25/2014
TUTUNJIAN & BITETTO, P.C.
425 Broadhollow Road, Suite 302
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
PHUNG, LUAT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/25/2014 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 DIRK ADOLPH, ANDREJ SCHEWZOW,
and MARCO WINTER
____________

Appeal 2011-008534
Application 10/893,183
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS,
and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-008534
Application 10/893,183

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-11, which are all the claims pending in this application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for encrypting
multimedia data before being transmitted to a user via a data network (see
Spec. 1:1-3 and 4:22-24).
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows.
1. A method for multiplexing data types into a
multiplexed data stream comprising the steps of:
encoding multimedia data into encrypted multimedia
data; and
multiplexing said encrypted multimedia data with stream
key data and decryption information; wherein the stream key
data and an instrument identification number, corresponding to
a device that will demultiplex said multiplexed data, are used to
determine how to multiplex said encrypted multimedia data
with stream key data and the decryption information in the
multiplexing step into a pattern.

Rejections
Claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Nishimoto (US 2004/0052379 A1). (See Ans. 3-7).
Claims 2 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nishimoto and Thatcher (US 5,285,497). (See Ans. 8-9).
Appeal 2011-008534
Application 10/893,183

3
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds the claimed “instrument identification number” is
met by the master key Km of Nishimoto (Ans. 4 (citing Nishimoto, Fig. 1)).
The Examiner further finds that Km is a part of content reception apparatus
5 and meets the claimed “instrument identification number, corresponding to
a device that will demultiplex said multiplexed data” (Ans. 9-10 (citing
Nishimoto, ¶¶ [0090], [0092], [0119], and [0103])).
Appellants contend that the recited instrument identification number,
as described on pages 6 and 7 of Appellants’ Specification, is used to control
the multiplexing pattern (App. Br. 6). Appellants further argue that the
master key disclosed in Nishino cannot be considered as the claimed
instrument identification number used to determine how to multiplex data
because the reference does not identify how the master key affects
multiplexing (App. Br. 6-7).
We agree with Appellants’ contentions above that Nishimoto does not
explain any relationship between the master key and how using work key
Kw and master key Km affect multiplexing data into a pattern. While the
master key in Nishino contributes to multiplexing the encrypted content (see
Nishino, ¶ [0121]), the reference includes no disclosure indicating the master
key is used to determine how to multiplex the encrypted data into a pattern.
Specifically, the Examiner has not identified any teachings in Nishimoto to
support the stated position (see Ans. 10) that work key Kw and master key
Km are being used to determine how to multiplex the encrypted data C with
Kw and Kc into an output or a pattern.

Appeal 2011-008534
Application 10/893,183

4
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, because the Examiner has not identified in
Nishimoto all the disputed claim limitations, we are persuaded by
Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, as well
as the other independent claims which recite similar limitations. Therefore,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as anticipated by Nishimoto. Additionally, in view of the failure of
the Examiner to point to any teaching in Thatcher to overcome the
deficiencies of Nishimoto, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claims 2 and 9.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-11 is reversed.

REVERSED

msc