Ex Parte Kraft et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 9, 2016

12041805 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 9, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/041,805 03/04/2008
95683 7590 06/13/2016
Ley dig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd, (Frankfurt office)
Two Prudential Plaza, Suite 4900
180 North Stetson Avenue
Chicago, IL 60601-6731
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Andreas Kraft
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.
812291 2160
EXAMINER
DAVIS, ZACHARY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/13/2016 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):
chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS KRAFT, JOERG OPPERMANN, ZHIYUN REN,
ALEXANDER KNAFNER, FLORIAN KOELLIEN,
and BEHREND FREESE
Appeal2014-009562
Application 12/041,805
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-009562
Application 12/041,805
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 20-36, which are all the claims remaining in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
Claim 20. A method for online distribution of digitized content that is
subject to digital rights management (DRM) for use of the digitized content,
wherein encrypted content and respective specific rights labels of rights
owners are transmitted via a network, the method comprising:
receiving a request at a first server from a first terminal device of a
first network subscriber for the encrypted content;
sharing peer-to-peer, among the first terminal device of the first
network subscriber and a second terminal device of a second network
subscriber, file segments including the encrypted content so as to provide the
encrypted content within different DRM files residing respectively on the
first terminal device and on the second terminal device, the different DR!vf
files having file segments that are identical to each other for a same part of
the content;
transmitting, by a centralized site including at least one of the first
server and a second server or by the second terminal device, to the first
terminal device, a rights label file segment of a given DRM file to be stored
on the first terminal device;
combining, by client software running on the first terminal device, a
first file segment of the file segments that are identical to each other for the
same part of the content and the transmitted rights label file segment so as to
form the given DRM file; and
separating the first file segment and the transmitted rights label file
segment from each other by the client software so as to provide a peer-to-
peer transmission of the first file segment to a third network subscriber.
2
Appeal2014-009562
Application 12/041,805
Lavender
Prior Art
GB 2,415,567 A Dec. 28, 2005
Erman et al., "Bit Torrent Session Characteristics and Models,"
Proceedings ofHET-NETs 3rd International Working Conference on
Performance Modeling and Evaluation of Heterogeneous Networks,
Vol. 2, July 2005, pp. 1-13.
Examiner's Rejections
Claim 24 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite.
Claims 20, 21, 26-29, and 31-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Lavender.
Claims 22-25 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lavender and Erman.
ANALYSIS
Section 112, Second Paragraph Rejection of Claim 24
The Examiner finds "the file" recited in step c of claim 24 is unclear
about which of the preceding files is "the file" of step c. Ans. 3. Appellants
contend "the file" of step c refers to the preceding "file ... containing the
first meta information" recited in step b of claim 24. Reply Br. 2. We agree
with Appellants.
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph.
3
Appeal2014-009562
Application 12/041,805
Section 102 Rejection of Claims 20, 21, 26-29, and 31-36
We agree with the Examiner's responses to the issues raised by
Appellants in the Appeal Brief for the reasons given in the Examiner's
Answer. We highlight the following issued raised by Appellants in the
Reply Brief for emphasis.
Claim 20 recites:
combining, by client software running on the first terminal
device, a first file segment of the file segments that are identical
to each other for the same part of the content and the
transmitted rights label file segment so as to form the given
DRM file; and
separating the first file segment and the transmitted rights label
file segment from each other by the client software so as to
provide a peer-to-peer transmission of the first file segment to a
third network subscriber.
Appellants contend associating a file for content stored on a computer and a
corresponding license for the content stored on the computer as disclosed by
Lavender does not disclose combining the files to form a DRM file as
recited in claim 20. Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants' contention is based on the
premise that the step of combining requires more than associating the files
with each other. See Reply Br. 3. However, Appellants do not persuasively
explain why the step of combining requires more than associating the files
with each other.
Appellants further contend the steps of combining and separating the
files recited in claim 20 require particular physical operations not disclosed
by Lavender. Reply Br. 3. Claim 20 does not recite particular physical
operations for combining and separating the files. Appellants' contention is
not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
4
Appeal2014-009562
Application 12/041,805
Appellants contend the Examiner ignored Appellants' arguments that
the files in Lavender cannot contain both file segments that are identical to
each other for the same part of the content and a transmitted rights label file
segment as required by claim 20. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds
Lavender discloses the user separately downloads content segments, or "file
segments that are identical," from peer nodes, and a license segment, or
"rights label file segment," from a server. Ans. 5---6. Appellants do not
persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings.
Appellants contend paragraph 5 of Appellants' Specification, which
discusses problems with linking rights labels to content in a DRM file,
provides evidence that the bitstream file sharing of Lavender would not be
able to perform peer-to-peer sharing of a DRM file. Reply Br. 3. Paragraph
5 of Appellants' Specification does not address Examiner's findings relating
to the peer-to-peer DRM file sharing disclosed in Figures 8 through 10 and
pages 45 and 46 of Lavender. See Ans. 3-7. Rather, paragraph 5 of
Appellants' Specification explains what Appellants believed was a problem
with peer-to-peer file sharing, but does not address the specific disclosure of
Lavender. Appellants' contention that the disclosure of Lavender could not
be used to perform peer-to-peer file sharing is inconsistent with the Digital
Rights Management system shown in Figure 10 and discussed on page 46 of
Lavender, which shows a first user downloading content from a second user,
and also downloading a license from a license server to view the
downloaded content.
We sustain the rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 21,
26-29, and 31-36, which fall with claim 20.
5
Appeal2014-009562
Application 12/041,805
Section 103 Rejection of Claims 22-25 and 30
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 22-25 and 30. We sustain the rejection of claims 22-25 and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as
being indefinite is reversed.
The rejection of claims 20, 21, 26-29, and 31-36 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as anticipated by Lavender is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 22-25 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lavender and Erman 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6