Ex Parte Krig et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2013

11775597 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2013)

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.
11/775,597 07/10/2007 Scott Krig 14528.00332 5281
16378 7590 10/04/2013
Broadcom/BHGL
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
ZELASKIEWICZ, CHRYSTINA E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3621
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/04/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SCOTT KRIG and ALEXANDER FAINKICHEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-009985
Application 11/775,597
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before BIBHU R. MOHANTY, NINA L. MEDLOCK, and
JAMES A. TARTAL, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-009985
Application 11/775,597

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-22, 24, 25, and 27-34. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

STATEMENT OF THE DECISION
We REVERSE.1

BACKGROUND
Appellants’ invention relates to a method and system for managing
the transmission of protected content and licenses over Media Transfer
Protocol (Spec., para. [0003]).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
1. A method for securing media content, the method
comprising:
in a content rendering device:
receiving a license prior to receiving
corresponding licensed protected content by said content
rendering device, wherein said license is received by said
content rendering device via one or both of Media
Transfer Protocol (MTP) and Enhanced Media Transfer
Protocol operations; and
rendering said received corresponding licensed
protected content.

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed February 17, 2011) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed May 31,
2011) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed March 30, 2011).
Appeal 2011-009985
Application 11/775,597

3
THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are before us for review:
Claims 1-5, 7, 8, 15, 17-22, 24, 25, 32, and 34 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harper
(US 2006/0190410 A1, pub. Aug. 24, 2006) in view of Pence
(US 2006/0294020 A1, pub. Dec. 28, 2006).
Claims 10-14, 16, 27-31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harper in view of Pence and further in
view of Manders et al., Media Transfer Protocol Implementation Details,
©2005 Microsoft Corporation (also available at http://download.
microsoft.com/ download/9/8/f/98f3fe47-dfc3-4e 74-92a3-
088782200fe7/TWM005003 WinHEC05.ppt) (hereinafter referred to as
“Manders”).

ANALYSIS
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 8, 15, and 17
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because, among other reasons, neither Harper nor Pence
discloses or suggests “receiving [by a content rendering device] a license
prior to receiving corresponding licensed protected content . . . wherein said
license is received . . . via one or both of Media Transfer Protocol (MTP)
and Enhanced Media Transfer Protocol operations,” as recited in claim 1
(App. Br. 6-8 and Reply Br. 2-9).
The Examiner maintains that the rejection is proper and cites
paragraphs [0059] and [0061] through [0063] of Harper as disclosing this
feature (Ans. 4 and 15).
Appeal 2011-009985
Application 11/775,597

4
We have reviewed the cited portions of Harper identified by the
Examiner, and note that these paragraphs describe that certain devices may
support MTP compliance (see, e.g., Harper, paras. [0059] and [0061]).
However, the Examiner does not explain how, and we fail to see how, the
cited portions of Harper, on which the Examiner relies, teach the limitation
at issue, i.e., “receiving a license . . . by said content rendering device via
one or both of Media Transfer Protocol (MTP) and Enhanced Media
Transfer Protocol operations.”
The Examiner cites Pence as teaching that a license is sent prior to
receiving corresponding licensed protected content. However, the Examiner
does not rely on Pence as teaching that a license is received “via one or both
of Media Transfer Protocol (MTP) and Enhanced Media Transfer Protocol
operations.”
The Examiner has failed to establish a prima facie showing of
obviousness. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also will not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2-5, 7, 8, 15, and 17, which depend from claim 1.
Cf. In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“[D]ependent claims
are nonobvious if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.”).
Independent claim 18 and dependent claims 19-22, 24, 25, 32, and 34
Independent claim 18 includes language substantially similar to the
language of claim 1. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons as set forth above
with respect to claim 1. We also will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 19-22, 24, 25, 32, and 34.
Appeal 2011-009985
Application 11/775,597

5
Dependent claims 10-14, 16, 27-31, and 33
Each of claims 10-14, 16, 27-31, and 33 depends from one of
independent claims 1 and 18. The Examiner does not contend that Manders
discloses the argued limitation recited in the independent claims. Therefore,
we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10-14, 16, 27-31, and
33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons, as set forth above with
respect to independent claims 1 and 18.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-5, 7, 8, 10-22, 24, 25, and
27-34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are reversed.

REVERSED

Klh