Ex Parte RouseDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 201612968844 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/968,844 12/15/2010 27045 7590 ERICSSON INC 6300 LEGACY DRIVE MIS EVR 1-C-11 PLANO, TX 75024 07/01/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alan Rouse 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. P32049-US1 3131 EXAMINER SANDERS, STEPHEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/01/2016 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): kara.coffman@ericsson.com kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALAN ROUSE Appeal2015-000906 Application 12/968,844 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHN A. EV ANS, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-9, 11-14, and 17-20. Claims 10, 15, and 16 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 Appellant identifies Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2015-000906 Application 12/968,844 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant's invention relates to digital rights management, and in particular, systems and methods for decrypting digital content in a data stream. Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent. Exemplary claim 1 reads as follows: 1. An apparatus comprising: receiving a digital content stream from a service provider, wherein the digital content stream further comprises said selected digital content, a decryption module associated with said one of said plurality of different encryption techniques, said decryption module capable of decrypting the selected digital content, and metadata that instructs said client device in extracting the decryption module from said digital content stream; extracting said decryption module as instructed by said metadata from said digital content stream; and decrypting, by said client device, said selected digital content with said decryption module and a decryption key. App. Br. 9 (paragraphing and emphasis added). PRIOR ART The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Yoneda Foti et al. US 7 ,065,653 B 1 US 2009/0013174 Al 2 June 20, 2006 Jan. 8,2009 Appeal2015-000906 Application 12/968,844 THE REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1-9, 11-14, and 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Foti and Yoneda. Final Act. 3-11. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of the arguments raised in the Briefs, on the record before us. For the following reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections. Appellant argues all claims on appeal as one group, with claim 1 representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). App. Br. 4--7. Appellant contends the Examiner erred in finding claim 1 obvious, because the prior art fails to teach a digital content stream comprising each of (i) the selected digital content, (ii) a decryption module, and (iii) metadata that instructs the client device in extracting the decryption module, as the claim requires. Id. Specifically, although the prior art discloses elements that generally could be construed as metadata and decryption modules, Appellant argues such elements are not disclosed or taught as being in the digital content stream along with the selected digital content to be decrypted, as the claim requires. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2. We agree. The Examiner relies on the combination of Foti and Yoneda, both of which are (like Appellant's claims) directed to digital rights management systems, in rejecting claim 1 as obvious. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner cites Foti as teaching each element of the claim except for a "decryption module." Id. at 4. The Examiner finds the decryption module in Yoneda, explaining that Yoneda teaches a decryption module which is "downloaded 3 Appeal2015-000906 Application 12/968,844 along with key data." Id. (citing Yoneda col. 1, 1. 59---col. 3, 1. 23; col. 8, 11. 12-21 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, the Examiner reasons, to use the decryption module disclosed in Yoneda for decrypting previously encrypted data as disclosed in both references. Id.; Ans. 11-12. The Examiner's explanation, although identifying an alleged decryption module in Yoneda, does not identify a teaching of that decryption module (and metadata for extracting it) being delivered in the digital content stream as required in Appellant's claim. We find no teaching of that limitation, on the record before us. Rather, Yoneda teaches that the decryption module already is present on the relevant client device. Yoneda col. 2, 1. 22, col. 4, 11. 8-9, 14--16. Moreover, the metadata (which the Examiner appears to equate to Yoneda's "key data" for decryption) is accessed through a remote server via an "address recorded on an information recording medium." Id. at col. 1, 11. 16-19, col. 3, 11. 12-18. Neither element is delivered in the digital content stream. Likewise, in Foti, the disclosed "decryption devices" cannot be Appellant's claimed decryption module because they are separate physical devices, not a module delivered in the digital content stream. Foti i-f 33; Ans. 12. Moreover, the "metadata" taught in Foti, Ans. 11, is "received by a device, e.g., a set-top box, during power up," Foti i-f 40 (emphasis added), not in the digital content stream as recited by Appellant's claim. On the record before us, therefore, Appellant's arguments have persuaded us the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Foti and Yoneda. We also do not sustain the rejection of independent 4 Appeal2015-000906 Application 12/968,844 claims 8 and 13, which include limitations commensurate in scope with the disputed limitations in claim 1, nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 11, 12, 14, and 17-20. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9, 11-14, and 17-20 is REVERSED. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation