Ex Parte JANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2016

12645358 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/645,358 12/22/2009 JAE-SEOK JANG
76277 7590 11/02/2016
IP LEGAL SERVICES, LLC
P.O. Box 651325
Sterling, VA 20165
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
805.0009 8075
EXAMINER
TRAN, ELLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/02/2016 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):
email@iplsllc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAE-SEOK JANG, SEOG-CHEON JEON,
and
HYUNG-SIK KIM
Appeal2015-000293
Application 12/645,358
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 10-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2015-000293
Application 12/645,358
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to "a method and system for using a
single piece of contents by a plurality of devices by using an external
memory" (Spec. i-f2).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A method of playing an encrypted content, the method
compnsmg:
connecting an external content-storage device to a
content-playing device for playing the encrypted content,
wherein the content-playing device is pre-registered for use in
playing the particular content, wherein the external storage
device stores the encrypted content, at least one encrypted
content identifier, and a right object including a content
encryption key, and wherein the at least one encrypted content
identifier is created by encrypting a content identifier of the
particular content with a unique identifier of at least one pre-
registered content-playing device;
retrieving, from the content-playing device, the unique
identifier of the content-playing device;
obtaining the content identifier from the stored at least
one encrypted content identifier, through a decoding process
using the retrieved unique identifier of the content-playing
device;
obtaining the content encryption key from the stored
right object, using the obtained content identifier;
decrypting the encrypted content using the obtained
content encryption key; and
playing the decrypted content in the content-playing
device.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Peterka (US 2006/0242069 Al;
2
Appeal2015-000293
Application 12/645,358
Oct. 26, 2006) and IBM ("IBM Response to DVB-CPT Call for Proposals
for Content Protection & Copy Management: xCP Cluster Protocol,"
October 19, 2001 ).
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 6-8, 12, 14, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Peterka, IBM, and Irwin (US
2005/0071280 Al; Mar. 31, 2005).
The Examiner rejected claiml8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon
the teachings of Peterka, IBM, and Downs (US 6,574,609 Bl; Jun. 3, 2003).
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Peterka and IBM does not teach or suggest independent claims 1, 10, and 13,
which recite substantially the same limitations (Br. 12). Particularly,
Appellants contend Peterka does not disclose "encrypted content stored in
the content-storage device" or a "content identifier also stored in the content-
storage device" as claimed (Br. 11 ). That is, Appellants assert, in Peterka
both a source device and a determination device store protected content and
licenses (content playing devices); whereas Appellants' content storage
device, which is an external memory, and not content playing devices, stores
encrypted information (id.). Appellants also contend the Examiner erred in
finding the binding key recited in IBM is not a unique identifier for each
device as claimed, "but rather is a unique identifier for the entire home" (Br.
12). We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own (Ans. 9-
12). First, we note although Appellants argue Irwin does not disclose the
limitations of the independent claims, Irwin was not used in rejecting the
3
Appeal2015-000293
Application 12/645,358
independent claims (Ans. 10, 11). Further, we agree Peterka discloses an
external storage device, such as a DVD, from which content is delivered
(Ans. 10; Peterka i-fi-f 12, 14), and is capable of being connected to a
preregistered content-playing device, contrary to Appellants' contentions
(Ans. 11; Br. 11 ). We also agree with the Examiner IBM's encrypted title
key and not the binding key is equivalent to Appellants' encrypted content
identifier contrary to Appellants contentions (Ans. 12; Br. 12). Appellants
have not rebutted the Examiner's reasonable findings.
Thus, in light of the broad terms recited in the claims and the
arguments presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish their
claimed invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. We therefore
are not persuaded the Examiner's reading of the claims on the cited
combination of references is overly broad or unreasonable and sustain the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 10-18, argued together (Br.
11).
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--8, and 10-18 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4