Ex Parte Apostolopoulos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2013

10779222 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOHN G. APOSTOLOPOULOS and SUSIE J. WEE

___________

Appeal 2010-008658
Application 10/779,222
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-008658
Application 10/779,222

2
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-20 and 27-36. Claims 21-26 have been allowed. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to generating data for describing scalable
media. Data is associated with the scalable media that identifies portions of
the scalable media to combine in order to produce media that is scaled to
possess a desired scalable attribute without decoding. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A method for generating data for describing
scalable media, said method comprising:
associating data with said scalable media that identifies
portions of said scalable media to combine in order to produce
media that is scaled to possess a desired scalable attribute
without decoding said scalable media;
encrypting said portions of said scalable media;
associating data with said portions of said scalable media
that identifies protection attributes of the encryption scheme
used to encrypt said portions of said scalable media.

Claims 1-20 and 27-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) as
being anticipated by Densham (U.S. Patent Application Publication No.
2006/0143018 A1; June 29, 2006).
The rejection of claims 21-26 under 35 U.S.C. §102(e) has been
withdrawn by the Examiner. (Ans. 2.)

Appeal 2010-008658
Application 10/779,222

3
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 10-11; see
also Reply Br. 2-4) that Densham does not describe the limitation
“associating data with said scalable media that identifies portions of said
scalable media to combine in order to produce media that is scaled to
possess a desired scalable attribute without decoding said scalable media,”
as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner found that step S55 of Densham, in which the range of
an audition sample A is scaled, and the header BH of Densham, collectively
correspond to the limitation “associating data with said scalable media that
identifies portions of said scalable media to combine in order to produce
media that is scaled to possess a desired scalable attribute without decoding
said scalable media.” (Ans. 3-4, 6-7; Densham, ¶¶ [0106], [0127]-[0128].)
We agree with the Examiner.
Densham relates to processing digital data (¶ [0002]), including the
compression and encryption of digital audio signals (Abstract). Figure 18 of
Densham illustrates a flow chart for distributing bits of an audio signal
among samples of the audio signal (¶ [0074]), which includes adding header
data to a bitstream (i.e. step S53) (¶ [0104]) and calculating A’[X] such that
A, a range of an audition sample, is scaled (i.e., step S55) (¶ [0106]). Thus,
Densham describes the limitation “scalable media.” In one embodiment of
Densham, related to “Partial Encryption and Decryption” (¶ [0127]),
Densham explains that “it may be desirable to allow only sub-sections of the
original material to be extracted from the distribution material” (e.g., an
audio track corresponding to scenes of a film or video) (¶ [0128]). Densham
further explains that “[t]he headers BH are placed at block boundaries to
Appeal 2010-008658
Application 10/779,222

4
indicate what part of the original audio is contained in the following section
or segment.” (¶ [0129].) Thus, Densham describes the limitation
“associating data with said scalable media that identifies portions of said
scalable media to combine.” Figure 9 of Densham illustrates sections or
segments based on the headers BH inserted during compression that
“include location start data plus block length data, block ID data and
possibly other data” and “allows a section or segment to be located without
needing to decrypt the data.” (¶ [0132].) Thus, Densham describes the
limitation “in order to produce media that is scaled to possess a desired
scalable attribute without decoding said scalable media.”
Appellants argue that “Densham also does not anticipate, ‘associating
data with said scalable media that identifies portions of said scalable media
to combine in order to produce media that is scaled to possess a desired
scalable attribute without decoding said scalable media.’” (App. Br. 11.) In
particular, Appellants argue that “Densham refers to encrypted data in which
a section can ‘be located without needing to decrypt the data’” and
“decrypting data is not analogous to ‘decoding’ data.” (Reply Br. 3.)
However, Appellants have not provided any persuasive evidence or rationale
to distinguish “decoding” from “decrypting.”
Appellants also argue that “Densham is silent to data ‘that identifies
portions of said scalable media to combine in order to produce media that is
scaled . . . .’” (App. Br. 11.) Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Densham
explains that “[t]he headers BH are placed at block boundaries to indicate
what part of the original audio is contained in the following section or
segment” (¶ [0129]), corresponding to the limitation “that identifies portions
of said scalable media to combine in order to produce media that is scaled.”
Appeal 2010-008658
Application 10/779,222

5
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Densham describes the
limitation “associating data with said scalable media that identifies portions
of said scalable media to combine in order to produce media that is scaled to
possess a desired scalable attribute without decoding said scalable media.”
We are also unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 11-12;
see also Reply Br. 5) that Densham does not describe the limitation
“encrypting said portions of said scalable media,” as recited in independent
claim 1.
The Examiner found that the encryption algorithm of Densham
corresponds to the limitation “encrypting said portions of said scalable
media.” (Ans. 3; Densham, ¶ [0080].) We agree with the Examiner.
In one embodiment illustrated in Figure 1, Densham explains that “the
first signal, which is the compressed and encrypted audio, is combined in a
combiner 8 with a second audio signal from a source 6.” (¶ [0080].) In
another embodiment of Densham related to “Partial Encryption and
Decryption” (¶ [0127]), Densham refers to “compression/encryption”
(¶ [0128]). Thus, Densham describes the limitation “encrypting said
portions of said scalable media.”
Appellants argue that “because the encryption of Densham occurs
before any asserted ‘associating data with said scalable media that identifies
portions of said scalable media to combine in order to produce media that is
scaled to possess a desired scalable attribute without decoding said scalable
media’ . . . the encryption of Densham cannot refer to encryption on
‘portions of said scalable media . . . .’” (App. Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 5.)
However, as found by the Examiner, Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate in scope with claim 1, because the claim does not expressly
Appeal 2010-008658
Application 10/779,222

6
require “encrypting” to occur after “associating data.” (Ans. 8.)
Furthermore, for the “Partial Encryption and Decryption” embodiment
(¶ [0127]), Densham generically refers to a “compressed/encrypted file”
with no express preference for order (see ¶ [0128]).
Appellants also argue that “the instant Office Action relies on
mutually exclusive embodiments of Densham.” (App. Br. 14.) However,
the Examiner cited to the “Partial Encryption and Decryption” embodiment
of Densham (¶ [0127]) which also refers to a “compressed/encrypted file”
(¶ [0128]). (Ans. 3.)
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Densham describes the
limitation “encrypting said portions of said scalable media.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e). Claims 2-10 depend from claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 2-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e),
for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 11 and 27 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellants have not
presented any substantive arguments with respect to these claims. We
sustain the rejection of claims 11 and 27, as well as dependent claims 12-20
and 28-36, for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 and 27-36 is affirmed.
Appeal 2010-008658
Application 10/779,222

7
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).

AFFIRMED

msc