Ex Parte Spurgat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 27, 2016

09833173 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
09/833,173
100692 7590
AOL Inc./Finnegan
04/11/2001
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
10/31/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jeffrey Jonathan Spurgat
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.
10587.0056-00000 1523
EXAMINER
CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2016 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JEFFREY JONATHAN SPURGAT,
STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER GLADWIN, DEPENG BI, and
TROY STEVEN DENKINGER
Appeal2015-002013
Application 09/833, 173
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, AMBER L. HAGY, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2015-002013
Application 09/833, 173
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 10-26, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
10. A system for maintaining protection of digital content
distributed for playback, the system comprising:
a computing platform, executing a playback application,
configured to:
select a server located on the Internet as a
source of digital content;
receive a file of encrypted digital content
from the server;
prepare the file of encrypted digital content
for transmission in a streaming format; and
transmit the encrypted digital content in the
streaming format, without decrypting, to a
communication link; and
a peripheral device coupled to the communication link
and configured to:
receive the encrypted digital content from
the computing platform in the streaming format;
decrypt the encrypted digital content into
decrypted digital content as the streaming
encrypted digital content is received; and
convert the decrypted digital content in the
streaming format to analog content for playback.
2
Appeal2015-002013
Application 09/833, 173
Jones
Levy
Allamanche
Prior Art
US 6,697,944 Bl
US 7 ,055,034 B 1
US 7,308,099 Bl
Examiner's Rejections
Feb.24,2004
May 30, 2006
Dec. 11, 2007
Claims 10-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jones, Levy, and Allamanche.
ANALYSIS
This application was before us as Appeal Number 2012-002622,
where we affirmed the rejection of claims 10-26 as unpatentable over Jones
and Levy. Appellants then amended five of the seven functional limitations
of claim 10 to recite the functions are performed on content in a "streaming
format." The Examiner now finds Allamanche teaches that performing the
functions taught by Jones and Levy on content in a "streaming format" as
claimed was within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5.
In particular, the Examiner finds that Allamanche teaches that the scope of
the claimed "streaming format" encompasses the MPEG layer 3 (MP3)
format. Ans. 4-5. The Examiner finds Allamanche teaches encrypting and
decrypting content in the "streaming format" (Final Act. 4; Ans. 5). The
Examiner also finds that Levy teaches preparing a file of encrypted content
for transmission in the MP3 "streaming format" (Ans. 4), and Jones teaches
receiving, decrypting, and playing back the content in the MP3 "streaming
format" (Ans. 5---6).
Appellants contend Levy teaches downloading an MP3 file, but does
not teach the functions of receive, prepare, and transmit encrypted digital
3
Appeal2015-002013
Application 09/833, 173
content in a "streaming format" as recited in claim 10. Reply Br. 4-5.
Appellants' contention is based on the premise that the MP3 format of Levy
is not a "streaming format" as claimed. "Absent an express definition in
their specification, the fact that appellants can point to definitions or usages
that conform to their interpretation does not make the PTO' s definition
unreasonable when the PTO can point to other sources that support its
interpretation." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Appellants' Specification does not provide an express definition of
"streaming format" that excludes the MP3 format. Although Appellants
contend the Examiner improperly relies on Wikipedia to find MP3 is a
format for streaming (Reply Br. 5), Appellants do not provide persuasive
evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner's finding that Allamanche
teaches that the scope of the claimed "streaming format" encompasses the
MP3 format. We agree with the Examiner that the scope of "streaming
format" encompasses formats, such as MP3, that can be streamed.
Appellants present similar arguments with respect to Jones (Reply Br.
4), which we find unpersuasive. Also, Appellants' contentions that
processing encrypted digital content in a "streaming format" was unknown
in the prior art is inconsistent with Figure 1 of Appellants' Admitted Prior
Art, which shows streamed encrypted content transmitted from computer
121 to computer 100.
We sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 11-
26, which fall with claim 10.
4
Appeal2015-002013
Application 09/833, 173
DECISION
Claims 10-26 are unpatentable.
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
5