Ex Parte Boykin et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 18, 2012

09907471 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 18, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PATRICK OSCAR BOYKIN, RICCARDO BOSCOLO,
and JESSE BRIDGEWATER

Appeal 2011-006977
Application 09/907,471
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.

DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-4 and 6-9. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method and system for
perceptually encoding an encoded digital signal to generate restricted video
data which if not decoded fully generates low quality video. See Abstract
Appeal 2011-006977
Application 09/907,471

2
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A system for transmitting a digital signal
comprising:

a. an encoder for band-compression encoding a first digital
signal as encoded data defining an image;

b. a perceptual encrypting system coupled to said encoder
wherein said perceptual encrypting system perceptually encrypts
said encoded data to generate restricted video data as
perceptually encrypted encoded data; and

c. a transmitter coupled to said perceptual encrypting system
wherein said transmitter transmits said perceptually encrypted
encoded data.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Truman US 2004/0037421 A1 Feb. 26, 2004
(Eff. filing date Dec. 15, 2000)
Demos US 6,957,350 B1 Oct. 18, 2005
(filing date Apr. 3, 2000)
Allamanche, Eric et al, “Secure Delivery of Compressed Audio by
Compatible Bitstream Scrambling”, pp 1-18, Feb. 19-22, 2000
(Hereinafter referred to as “Allamanche”)

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Truman and Demos. Ans. 7-9.1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)
as anticipated by Allamanche. Ans. 4-5.

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 19, 2010
and the Examiner’s Answer mailed December 27, 2010.
Appeal 2011-006977
Application 09/907,471

3
3. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 6-9 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)
as anticipated by Truman. Ans. 5-6.

ISSUE
Based upon our review of the record, the arguments proffered by
Appellants and the findings of the Examiner we find the following issue
dispositive of the claims on appeal. Has the Examiner erred by finding that
Truman is prior art to the present application?

ANALYSIS
We will address the arguments raised by Appellants in the order those
arguments were submitted.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 6-9 as
anticipated by Truman is “not appropriate” noting that the present
application was filed July, 16, 2001 and Truman was filed December 17,
2001. App. Br. 18.
The Examiner finds that Truman is afforded the filing date of the
provisional application No. 60/255,954, filed on December 15, 2000 in
accordance with MPEP §2136.03(III). Ans. 10.
We find the Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief challenging the
Examiner’s position that the aforementioned provisional application
supports the cited portions of Truman. We have only considered those
arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Brief. Arguments
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Brief have not
been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. §
Appeal 2011-006977
Application 09/907,471

4
41.37(c)(1)(vii). Consequently, we are not persuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 6-9 as anticipated by Truman.
Appellants similarly argue that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Truman and Demos is
improper, based upon an assertion that Appellants are entitled to a filing date
of either October 23, 2000 or December 19, 2000, noting that the present
application is a continuation-in-part of two earlier applications.
The Examiner finds that United States Patent Application No.
09/695,449, filed October 23, 2000, relates to a personal digital assistant
which plays compressed audio data with restricted fidelity and fails to
provide adequate support required by the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. § 112.
The Examiner finds that United States Patent Application No. 09/740,717,
filed December 19, 2000 provides support for perceptually encrypting video;
however, it fails to precede the effective filing date of Truman, December
15, 2000. Ans. 10-11.
As above, we find Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief challenging
the Examiner’s position and have therefore waived such argument. We are
therefore not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Truman and Demos.
Finally, Appellants have failed to submit an argument opposing the
Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) of claims 4 and 6-9 as
anticipated by Allamanche and have therefore waived such argument.
Consequently, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and
6-9 under 35 U.S.C. §102(a) as unpatentable over Allamanche.
Appeal 2011-006977
Application 09/907,471

5
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-9 under § 102
and §103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-4 and 6-9 is affirmed.
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

pgc