Ex Parte Pickering et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2018

14378962 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/378,962 12/22/2014
128144 7590
Rimon, P.C.
One Embarcadero Center
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
12/26/2018
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anthony Pickering
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.
14-30214-US 3613
EXAMINER
FAROOQUI, QUAZI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/26/2018 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):
uspto@rimonlaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
docketing.rimonlaw@clarivate.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANTHONY PICKERING, RAHUL MEHRA,
and ERIK HIETBRINK
Appeal2018-004702 1
Application 14/378,9622
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JOHN D. HAMANN, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-28. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
1 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Oct.
8, 2017), Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Mar. 30, 2018), and Specification
("Spec.," filed Aug. 14, 2014), as well as the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.,"
mailed Feb. 1, 2018) and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed May
11, 2017).
2 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Irdeto B.V. App. Br.
2.
Appeal2018-004702
Application 14/378,962
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to "generating, from initial
content data, output content data for provision to one or more receivers."
Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A method, implemented by one or more computer
processors, for generating, from initial content data, output
content data for provision to one or more receivers, wherein the
initial content data is encoded according to a coding scheme,
wherein for a quantity of data encoded according to the coding
scheme, the coding scheme provides a mechanism for including
in the quantity of encoded data additional data such that a
decoder for the coding scheme, upon decoding the quantity of
encoded data, does not use the additional data to generate
decoded data, the method comprising:
selecting one or more portions of the initial content data;
for each selected portion, generating a data construct that
comprises a plurality of data structures, each data structure
comprising data, including a version of the selected portion,
that is encrypted using a corresponding encryption process
different from each encryption process used to encrypt data in
the other data structures, wherein the data construct is arranged
such that using a decryption process that corresponds to the
encryption process for one data structure on the encrypted data
in each data structure in the data construct produces a quantity
of data encoded according to the coding scheme that uses the
mechanism so that a decoder for the coding scheme would not
use any data structure in the data construct other than said one
data structure; and
using the generated data constructs in the initial content
data instead of their corresponding selected portions to form the
output content data.
2
Appeal2018-004702
Application 14/378,962
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1-9, 11-24, and 26-28 under
35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Wasilewski (US 2005/0152548 Al;
published July 14, 2005). Final Act. 6-17.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 10 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the combination of Wasilewski and Candelore
(US 2005/0169473 Al; published Aug. 4, 2005). Final Act. 17-19.
ISSUE
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether Wasilewski discloses
that "the data construct is arranged [to] ... us [ e] a decryption process that
corresponds to the encryption process for one data structure on the encrypted
data in each data structure in the data construct."
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner errs. We find Appellants' arguments
discussed herein3 persuasive.
Appellants argue that Wasilewski fails to disclose that "the data
construct is arranged [to] ... us [ e] a decryption process that corresponds to
the encryption process for one data structure on the encrypted data in each
data structure in the data construct," as recited in independent claims 1, 14,
and 16. App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 5---6. In other words, Wasilewski fails to
3 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced
by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
3
Appeal2018-004702
Application 14/378,962
disclose using the decryption process on both data structures, including for
the data structure having encrypted data that uses a different encryption
process, according to Appellants. Id. Appellants argue that Wasilewski
instead discloses applying the decryption process to just the data structure
that employs the corresponding encryption process (i.e., the same coding
scheme) and skipping the other data structure that employs a different
encryption process. See Reply Br. 6-7 (citing Wasilewski ,r,r 34--37); App.
Br. 10-11 (citing Wasilewski Fig. 5).
The Examiner finds that Wasilewski discloses the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 6-7, 12. More specifically, the Examiner finds that the disputed
limitation means "encrypting segmented data separately by different
associated key for each version and decrypting correct one by the receiver
with corresponding decryption key and method." Ans. 12. Based on this
interpretation, the Examiner finds that Wasilewski teaches "that incoming
packets are separated in 2 streams for different encryption methods, and
appropriate subscriber decrypts the packet with matching decryption key
separately. This reference uses separate encryption/ decryption method for
different type of set top boxes." Id. ( citing Wasilewski Fig. 5); see also id.
at 11 ( citing Wasilewski ,r,r 3-5).
Based on the evidence of record, we are constrained to agree with
Appellants that the Examiner errs in finding that the cited portions of
Wasilewski disclose the disputed limitation. First, we disagree with the
Examiner's interpretation of the disputed limitation. "Although the
[US]PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this
interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art
would reach." In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (citing
4
Appeal2018-004702
Application 14/378,962
In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). Simply put, the
Examiner's interpretation is not consistent with the one that those skilled in
the art would reach because the unambiguous claim language recites "using
a decryption process that corresponds to the encryption process for one data
structure on the encrypted data in each data structure in the data construct."
App. Br. 15 ( emphasis added); see also Texas Instruments Inc. v. US. Int 'l
Trade Comm 'n, 988 F.2d 1165, 1171 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (quoting Autogiro Co.
v. United States, 384 F.2d 391,396 (1967)) ("Courts can neither broaden nor
narrow claims to give the patentee something different than what he has set
forth.").
In applying Wasilewski's disclosure to the plain meaning of the
disputed limitation ( as Appellants do), we agree with Appellants that
Wasilewski discloses applying the decryption process to just one data
structure (i.e., the one that employs the same coding scheme) and skipping
the other data structure that employs a different encryption process. See
Wasilewski ,r,r 34--37, Fig. 5. In other words, we find that Wasilewski fails
to disclose using the decryption process on the encrypted data in each data
structure in the data construct. Id.
CONCLUSION
Based on our reasoning above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
§ 102 rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 16, as well as claims 2-9,
11-13, 15, 17-24, and 26-28, as they depend from one of these independent
claims. As to the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 10 and 25, the
Examiner relies on the above discussed findings from Wasilewski regarding
5
Appeal2018-004702
Application 14/378,962
the disputed limitation. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the Examiner's
§ 103 rejection of claims 10 and 25.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-28.
REVERSED
6