Ex Parte Akins

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 8, 2012

10383130 (B.P.A.I. May. 8, 2012)

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.
10/383,130 03/06/2003 Glendon L. Akins III 60374.0155US01/A-8068 9177
62658 7590 05/08/2012
MERCHANT & GOULD
SCIENTIFIC ATLANTA, A CISCO COMPANY
P.O. BOX 2903
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402-0903
EXAMINER
LANIER, BENJAMIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2432
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/08/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte GLENDON L. AKINS III
____________________

Appeal 2009-011392
Application 10/383,130
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
MICHAEL R. ZECHER, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-011392
Application 10/383,130

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
1

The Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-13, 19-25, 29, 32, 33, 35, 46, 52, 87, and 91-131, the
only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over
the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellant’s invention relates generally to communication
systems, such as subscriber television systems, and, in particular, to
providing conditional access to recorded service instances. Specification
1:5-7.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method of accessing a recording of a digital service on a
settop, the settop in communication with a digital subscriber
system having a headend, the method comprising the steps of:
[1] retrieving a given decryptor and a set of packets from a
hard drive, the set of packets carrying a portion of a digital
service, wherein the hard drive has multiple sets of packets and
multiple decryptors stored therein, each decryptor associated
with a particular set of packets, and the multiple sets of packets
make up the recording of the digital service; and
[2] determining whether the settop is entitled to access the
set of packets by at least processing at least a portion of the
given decryptor, wherein each decryptor includes a
broadcast time specifier associated with when the digital service

1
Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Dec. 9, 2008) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 4, 2009),
and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 2, 2009), and Final
Rejection (“Final Rej.,” mailed Oct. 17, 2008).
Appeal 2009-011392
Application 10/383,130

3
was broadcast from the headend and temporal information defining a
time-span during which the settop is entitled to access the entire
recording of the digital service;
[3] retrieving a personal video recorder-rights entitlement
control message (PVR-Rights ECM) from the hard drive,
wherein the PVR-Rights ECM is associated with the set of
packets and includes a service-right identifier;
[4] determining which of a plurality of access types the user
is entitled to based on the service-right identifier;
[5] responsive to determining that the settop is entitled to
access the set of packets:
[a] processing at least a portion of the given decryptor
with a first key to generate a decryption-key therefrom; and
[b] decrypting content included in the set of packets
with the decryption-key;
[6] providing the user with access, of the determined type, to
the decrypted content.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Wasilewski
Davis
Safadi
US 5,870,474
US 2001/0036254 A1
US2001/0051037 A1
Feb. 9, 1999
Nov. 1, 2001
Dec. 13, 2001
Candelore
Tariq
Przydatek
US 6,363,149 B1
US 2004/0088544 A1
US 6,745,138 B2
Mar. 26, 2002
May 6, 2004
June 1, 2004

Appeal 2009-011392
Application 10/383,130

4
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 11-13, 19-25,
2
29, 35, 46, 52, 87, 91, 92, 100-109, and
111-131 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Wasilewski, Safadi, and Candelore.
Claims 4-10 and 93-99 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Wasilewski, Safadi, Candelore, and Tariq.
Claim 110
3
stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wasilewski, Safadi, Candelore, and Davis.
Claims 32 and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wasilewski, Safadi, Candelore, and Przydatek.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-13, 19-
25, 29, 32, 33, 35, 46, 52, 87, and 91-131 turns on whether the combination
of the cited prior art teaches or suggests “retrieving a personal video
recorder-rights entitlement control message (PVR-Rights ECM) from the
hard drive,” and “wherein each decryptor includes…temporal information
defining a time-span during which the settop is entitled to access the entire
recording of the digital service.”

2
For purposes of this opinion, we presume the Examiner mistakenly
discusses (Ans. 3, 11-12) canceled claims 26 and 27 in the rejection.
3
We note that the Examiner has listed claim 28 as rejected. Ans. 18.
However, the Appellant has cancelled this claim and therefore claim 28 not
subject to appeal. App. Br. 1-2.
Appeal 2009-011392
Application 10/383,130

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the
Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with the Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.

Claims 1-3, 11-13, 19-25, 29, 35, 46, 52, 87, 91, 92, 100-109, and
111-131 rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over
Wasilewski, Safadi, and Candelore
The Appellant first contends that the combination of Wasilewski,
Safadi, and Candelore fails to teach or suggest “retrieving a personal video
recorder-rights entitlement control message (PVR-Rights ECM) from the
hard drive,” as per claim 1 and similar limitations found in claims 91 and
100. App. Br. 6-9 and 11-13 and Reply Br. 2-4. We disagree with the
Appellant. Wasilewski describes a control system for providing interactive
services, where the user selects a program from a settop unit, data packets of
the program are encrypted, conditional access is applied to the requested
program, and the program is transmitted to the user’s settop unit.
Wasilewski 3:53 – 4:11. The Examiner further found that Wasilewski
describes the use of entitlement control messages (ECM) that manage access
control to digital services, and transmitting the ECM with the encrypted
program. Ans. 20. Safadi describes a personal versatile recorder used for
Appeal 2009-011392
Application 10/383,130

6
recording, transcoding, retrieval, and playback of audiovisual programming.
Safadi ¶ 0002. The Examiner further found that Safadi describes storing
streamed content on to the recorder and the recorder performs an inquiry to
determine whether requisite permissions needed to store the content are
present. Ans. 20-21 and Safadi ¶¶ 0070-0073. The Examiner concluded it
would have been obvious to modify the content and respective ECM of
Wasilewski to include the stored content that has permission control in order
to store requested content the user might not be able to view right away.
Ans. 20-21.
The Appellant specifically argues that Wasilewski fails to describe a
hard disk to store both the content and ECMs. Reply Br. 3-4. The Appellant
also argues that Safadi fails to describe storing ECMs on the disk. Reply Br.
4. However, the Appellant’s contention does not persuade us of error on the
part of the Examiner because the Appellant is responding to the rejection by
attacking the references separately, even though the rejection is based on the
combined teachings of the references. Nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. See In re Merck &
Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed supra, the
Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of the cited prior art, not
each reference alone.
The Appellant further contends that the combination of Wasilewski,
Safadi, and Candelore fails to teach or suggest “wherein each decryptor
includes…temporal information defining a time-span during which the
settop is entitled to access the entire recording of the digital service,” as per
claims 1, 91, and 100. App. Br. 7-8 and 10-13. We disagree with the
Appeal 2009-011392
Application 10/383,130

7
Appellant. Candelore describes a method and apparatus for scrambling
program data such that the program data may be de-scrambled for viewing at
a future time. Candelore 1:7-10. As found by the Examiner, Candelore
further describes that ECMs control access to content through the use of
keys, where ECMs are valid only for a specified portion of time. Ans. 21.
Candelore specifically describes that a user can record content and have
access to the content for a year. This further suggests the decryptor contains
related temporal information in order to obtain the content within the
specified time frame. Candelore 10:53-54. Thus, the Appellant’s argument
that a user cannot view the entire recording for a specific time-span in
Candelore is not found to be persuasive.

Claims 4-10 and 93-99 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wasilewski, Safadi, Candelore, and Tariq
The Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
4-10 and 93-99 for the same reasons asserted in support of claims 1 and 91.
App. Br. 13. We disagree with the Appellant. The Appellant’s arguments
were not found to be persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the
same reasons.

Claim 110 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wasilewski, Safadi, Candelore, and Davis
The Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 110
for the same reasons asserted in support of claim 100. App. Br. 13. We
disagree with the Appellant. The Appellant’s arguments were not found to
be persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons.
Appeal 2009-011392
Application 10/383,130

8
Claims 32 and 33 rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wasilewski, Safadi, Candelore, and Przydatek
The Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
32-33 for the same reasons asserted in support of claim 1. App. Br. 14. We
disagree with the Appellant. The Appellant’s arguments were not found to
be persuasive supra and are not persuasive here for the same reasons.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-13, 19-25, 29, 32, 33, 35,
46, 52, 87, and 91-131.

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-13, 19-25, 29, 32, 33, 35, 46, 52, 87, and 91-
131 is sustained.
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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ELD