Ex Parte Pinder

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2013

11407653 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 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.
11/407,653 04/20/2006 INV001Howard G. Pinder SA-018963 US
CON1(A11219)
7910
85811 7590 03/20/2013
Tarolli, Sundheim, Covell & Tummino L.L.P.
Cisco Systems, Inc.
1300 East Ninth Street
Suite 1700
Cleveland, OH 44114
EXAMINER
LANIER, BENJAMIN E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2432
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/20/2013 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 HOWARD G. PINDER
____________

Appeal 2010-007158
Application 11/407,653
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
DAVID C. McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5, 12, 13, 17-20, 22, and 24-26.1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

1 Since the Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 6-11, 14-16, 21, 23,
and 27 (Ans. 2; Reply Br. 7), those rejections are not before us.
Appeal 2010-007158
Application 11/407,653

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention receives digital packets and transmits packets
below a predetermined maximum bit rate. To this end, an input transport
stream is received with plural packet identifier (PID) streams. Respective
streams are received, decrypted, statistically multiplexed, encrypted, and
transmitted at a transport stream apparatus. See generally Title; Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method of providing a transport stream, which includes a group
of PID streams, wherein a PID stream is a stream of packets having a
common packet identifier (PID) associated therewith, with a predetermined
maximum bit rate, the method is implemented in a receiver-transmitter
adapted to receive and transmit transport streams, the method comprising:
receiving an input transport stream having a plurality of PID streams
included therein, wherein packets in each of the PID streams have a
respective PID value;
determining at the receiver-transmitter whether to decrypt a first at
least one PID stream of the plurality of received PID streams based on the
PID value of the first at least one PID stream and an encrypt/decrypt look-
up table;
decrypting at the receiver-transmitter the first at least one PID stream
based on the determination of whether to decrypt;
statistically multiplexing at the receiver-transmitter a second at least
one PID stream of the plurality of received PID streams into a group of PID
streams, wherein the bit rate of the group of PID streams does not exceed the
predetermined maximum bit rate;
encrypting a third at least one PID stream of the plurality of received
PID streams; and
transmitting from the receiver-transmitter a fourth at least one PID
stream of the plurality of received PID streams from at least one transmitter.

THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 18-20, 22, and 24-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Perlman (US 7,093,277 B2; Aug.
Appeal 2010-007158
Application 11/407,653

3
15, 2006; filed May 30, 2001), Hamilton (US 5,504,816; Apr. 2, 1996), and
Blatter (US 5,878,135; Mar. 2, 1999). Ans. 3-7.2
2. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Perlman, Hamilton, Blatter, and Tanaka (US 6,782,006
B1; Aug. 24, 2004; filed May 31, 2000). Ans. 7.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Perlman, Hamilton, Blatter, and Khaled Shuaib et al.,
Dejittering in the Transport of MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 Video, 8 MULTIMEDIA
SYS. 231-39 (2000) (“Shuaib”). Ans. 7-8.
4. The Examiner rejected claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Perlman, Hamilton, Blatter, and Safadi (US 5,572,517;
Nov. 5, 1998). Ans. 8-9.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PERLMAN, HAMILTON, AND BLATTER
The Examiner finds that Perlman discloses every recited element of
representative claim 1 including a cable headend that receives encrypted
content in the form of packet identifier (PID) streams that are encrypted,
statistically multiplexed, and transmitted. Although the Examiner
acknowledges that Perlman does not decrypt received streams at the
headend, the Examiner cites Hamilton as teaching decrypting received
streams and re-encrypting them, and concludes that providing this feature in
Perlman’s headend would have been obvious. Ans. 3-5, 9-10. The
Examiner also acknowledges that Hamilton does not use a look-up table to

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed December
4, 2009 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed February 24, 2010
(“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed April 19, 2010 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2010-007158
Application 11/407,653

4
for decryption and re-encryption, but cites Blatter as teaching this feature in
concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Ans. 4-5, 10.
Appellant argues Hamilton does not cure Perlman’s deficiencies
regarding determining, at a receiver-transmitter, whether to decrypt a first at
least one PID stream since Hamilton’s microprocessor 92 provides mapping
information for decrypting various channels—a decryption that is not based
on a value in a PID stream as claimed. App. Br. 13. Appellant adds that the
Examiner’s reason to combine Hamilton and Blatter is irrational since
Blatter pertains to a set-top box for an end user, and Blatter’s look-up table
would not limit reverse engineering and code-breaking as the Examiner
contends. App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3-5. Appellant argues various other
recited limitations summarized below.

ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Perlman,
Hamilton, and Blatter collectively would have taught or suggested:
(1) determining, at a receiver-transmitter, whether to decrypt a first at
least one PID stream of plural received PID streams based on (a) the PID
stream value of the first at least one PID stream, and (b) an encrypt/decrypt
look-up table as recited in claim 1?
(2) determining, at the receiver-transmitter, whether to (a) statistically
multiplex a second at least one PID stream, and (b) encrypt a third at least
one PID stream as recited in claim 5?
II. Is the Examiner’s combining the teachings of Perlman, Hamilton,
and Blatter supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion?
Appeal 2010-007158
Application 11/407,653

5
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of representative claim 1. The Examiner relies principally on the
functionality of Perlman’s headend equipment 1600 (“headend”) in Figure
16 in connection with the recited receiving, multiplexing, encrypting, and
transmitting steps. See Ans. 3-4, 9. These findings are undisputed.
Although the Examiner does not specifically map Perlman’s headend to the
recited “receiver-transmitter,” we nonetheless presume that this is the
Examiner’s intention based on the Examiner’s reliance on Perlman’s
headend in connection with various functions associated with the recited
receiver-transmitter.
Nor is it disputed that Perlman’s headend lacks the recited decryption
determination. To cure this deficiency, the Examiner cites Hamilton to show
that decrypting received streams at the headend would have been obvious.
Ans. 9 (citing Hamilton, col. 4, ll. 49-52). We see no error in this position.
Notably, Hamilton’s decryption and re-encryption occurs at the headend.
See Hamilton, col. 4, ll. 49-64; col. 5, ll. 25-34; Fig. 2 (showing decrypter 65
and encrypter 74 at headend 40). Therefore, we see no reason why
providing a similar decryption/re-encryption capability in Perlman’s
headend (which likewise encrypts) would not predictably use prior art
elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Appellant’s arguments regarding Hamilton’s failure to teach or
suggest using the recited PID value as a basis to determine whether to
decrypt (App. Br. 13) are unavailing, for they are not germane to the limited
Appeal 2010-007158
Application 11/407,653

6
purpose for which Hamilton was cited, namely merely to show that
decrypting and re-encrypting received streams at a headend (i.e., a receiver-
transmitter) would have been obvious. Ans. 9.
Nor are we persuaded of error in the Examiner’s reliance on Blatter to
show that basing a decryption determination on (1) a PID value of at least
one PID stream, and (2) an encrypt/decrypt look-up table is known, and that
it would have been obvious to combine this teaching with the
Perlman/Hamilton system. Ans. 4-5. Notably, Appellant does not dispute
the Examiner’s findings from Blatter’s column four regarding using (1) a
PID value of at least one PID stream, and (2) an encrypt/decrypt look-up
table as a basis to decrypt received streams. See Reply Br. 5
(acknowledging Blatter’s look-up tables that permit units 45 and 47 to match
encrypted packets containing a preloaded PID with associated keys that
permit their decryption in col. 4, ll. 42-64).
Rather, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s security-based rationale to
combine this teaching with the Perlman/Hamilton system, namely to limit
reverse engineering and code breaking—security features that are said to be
provided by Blatter’s smart card 130, not the look-up tables. App. Br. 15;
Reply Br. 4-5. But even assuming that this is the case, the look-up tables are
nonetheless elements of the overall system that provides these key security
features. See Fig. 1 (showing units 45 and 47 as part of transport system 25
that includes smart card 130). In any event, the fact that Blatter’s look-up
tables may not themselves provide the stated security advantages does not
obviate the fact that it is known in the art to base a decryption determination
on (1) a PID value of at least one PID stream, and (2) an encrypt/decrypt
look-up table via units 45 and 47 as noted above. We see no reason why
Appeal 2010-007158
Application 11/407,653

7
providing this decryption technique in the Perlman/Hamilton system (which
likewise decrypts) would not predictably use prior art elements according to
their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at
417.
And even assuming that Blatter’s decryption occurs at an end-user’s
set-top box with limited capabilities as Appellant contends (App. Br. 15;
Reply Br. 3-4), we still see no reason why Blatter’s decryption technique
could not be applied to Perlman/Hamilton’s headend-based decryption. It is
well settled that if a technique has been used to improve one device (i.e.,
using a particular decryption technique in a set-top box), and an ordinarily
skilled artisan would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way (i.e., using that technique to decrypt at a headend), using the
technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. For similar reasons, we also see no reason why
Perlman’s decryption determination features in the receiver 1805 in Figure
18 could not have been applied to the Perlman’s headend as the Examiner
indicates (Ans. 9-10) since this headend also decrypts when considered in
light of Hamilton as noted above. The Examiner’s combining the teachings
of Perlman, Hamilton, and Blatter is therefore supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2 and 3 not separately argued with
particularity.

Appeal 2010-007158
Application 11/407,653

8
Claims 5 and 22
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 5
reciting, in pertinent part, determining, at the receiver-transmitter, whether to
(1) statistically multiplex a second at least one PID stream, and (2) encrypt a
third at least one PID stream. Appellant’s contention that signals are
processed in Perlman’s Figure 16 without regard to “explicit determinations”
(App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 6) does not persuasively rebut the Examiner’s
finding that (1) some streams are statistically multiplexed via QAM3 module
1610, but others are not, and (2) some streams are encrypted via alternative
encryption module 1602, but others are not. Ans. 6, 11 (citing Perlman, Fig.
16).
Although the Examiner does not specify which streams are
multiplexed and which are not, Perlman’s Figure 16 shows four streams
entering the QAM module 1610 from alternate encryption module 1602 and
conditional access (CA) modules 1603 and 1605, and an analog stream
bypassing the QAM module. See generally Perlman, col. 13, l. 10 – col. 14,
l. 13 (describing the functionality of Figure 16). Although Perlman does not
explicitly disclose affirmatively making a particular PID stream multiplexing
determination as Appellant argues (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 6), we are
nonetheless unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s position based on the
routing in Figure 16 which at least suggests that a determination is made at
the headend (receiver-transmitter) to multiplex at least some streams
according to the Examiner’s position. We reach this conclusion
emphasizing that the claim does not recite how the recited encryption and

3 “QAM” stands for quadrature amplitude modulation. Perlman, col. 1, ll.
49-50.
Appeal 2010-007158
Application 11/407,653

9
multiplexing determinations are made apart from generally reciting the
determinations. As such, Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with
the scope of the claim.
Similarly, Perlman routes some streams to alternate encryption
module 1602 for non-standard encryption, yet other streams bypass this
module by passing either through the CA modules for standard encryption or
bypassing the encryption modules altogether. See Perlman, col. 13, l. 10 –
col. 14, l. 13; Fig. 16. This routing likewise at least suggests determining at
the headend whether to encrypt at least one stream. On this record,
Appellant has failed to show error in the Examiner’s findings in this regard.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 5, and claim 22 not separately argued with particularity.

Claims 18-20 and 24-26
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 18-20
and 24-26. Ans. 3-5. Despite nominally arguing independent claims 18 and
24 separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection
with claims 1 and 5 (see App. Br. 22-25) which we find unpersuasive for the
reasons previously discussed. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of (1) independent claims 18 and 24, and (2) dependent claims 19, 20, 25,
and 26 not separately argued with particularity.

THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 4,
12, 13, and 17. Ans. 7-9. Despite nominally arguing these claims
separately, Appellant reiterates similar arguments made in connection with
Appeal 2010-007158
Application 11/407,653

10
claim 1 and alleges that the additional cited references fail to cure those
purported deficiencies. App. Br. 26, 31-32. We are not persuaded by these
arguments, however, for the reasons previously discussed.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-5, 12, 13, 17-20, 22,
and 24-26 under § 103.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 12, 13, 17-20, 22, and
24-26 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

babc