Senthil Kumar et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 21, 2019

14465119 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2019)

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.
14/465,119 08/21/2014 Senthil Kumar REIM-0004 7711
27964 7590 08/21/2019
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C.
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2019 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SENTHIL KUMAR and RAJESH RAMACHANDRAN
____________

Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants1 appeal from the Examiner’s
decision to reject claims 1–24, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention creates an exhibition key delivery message
(KDM) by using (1) a received distribution KDM (DKDM); (2) a device
certificate from a device list database containing device certificates of at

1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Qube Cinema Technologies
Private Limited. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

2
least some target digital players located in a region; and (3) booking data
from a booking data database containing schedules regarding a composition
pertaining to the DKDM. See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 6–8.
Claims 1 and 19 are illustrative:
1. An exhibition key delivery message (KDM)
distribution system operable to receive a distribution KDM
(DKDM) and comprising:
a device list database containing device certificates of at
least some target digital cinema players located in a unique
region in which said KDM distribution system is allowed to
distribute a composition;
booking data database containing schedules regarding
said composition pertaining to said DKDM; and
a KDM generator operable to create an exhibition KDM
for said composition using a geographic rule in said DKDM, a
device certificate from said device list database and booking
data from said booking data database, wherein said geographic
rule in said DKDM enables said exhibition KDM distribution
system to distribute said exhibition KDM to only said at least
some target digital cinema players in said unique region.

19. An exhibition key delivery message (KDM)
received from an exhibition KDM distribution system,
comprising:
data identifying a digital cinema package (DCP) to which
said exhibition KDM corresponds;
at least one geographic rule identifying a unique region in
which said DCP is authorized to be played; and
data allowing a digital cinema player to play said DCP
only if said digital cinema player is located within said unique
region identified by said at least one geographic rule, wherein
said exhibition KDM distribution system is enabled by a
regional restriction received from a mastering site to distribute
said exhibition KDM to only digital cinema players located in
said unique region.

Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

3
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1 and 3–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wetmore (US 2009/0144542 A1; published June 4, 2009),
Chong (US 2015/0067719 A1; published Mar. 5, 2015), Denning (US
2002/0136407 A1; published Sept. 26, 2002), and Fransdonk (US
2003/0161476 A1; published Aug. 28, 2003). Final Act. 2–14.2
The Examiner rejected claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Wetmore, Chong, Denning, Fransdonk, and Lee (US 2008/0092244
A1; published Apr. 17, 2008). Final Act. 14–15.
The Examiner rejected claims 19–24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Wetmore, Denning, and Fransdonk. Final Act. 15–22.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WETMORE, CHONG,
DENNING, AND FRANSDONK

The Examiner finds that Wetmore, Chong, Denning, and Fransdonk
collectively teach or suggest all recited elements of claim 1. Final Act. 3–6.
The Examiner finds that Wetmore teaches many recited elements of
independent claim 1 including, among other things, an exhibition KDM
distribution system comprising a KDM generator operable to create an
exhibition KDM for a composition using (1) a rule; (2) a device certificate
from a device list database; and (3) booking data from a booking data
database. Final Act. 3–4; Ans. 3. The Examiner also cites Chong for

2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed
November 9, 2017 (“Final Act.”); (2) the Appeal Brief filed February 27,
2018 (“App. Br.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer mailed June 1, 2018
(“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed August 1, 2018.
Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

4
teaching creating the exhibition KDM using a received DKDM. Final Act.
3–4; Ans. 4. Denning is cited for teaching the DKDM includes a geographic
rule for distributing a composition to a unique region. Final Act. 4; Ans. 5.
Fransdonk is cited for teaching distributing the exhibition KDM to only at
least some target players in the unique region. Final Act. 5; Ans. 6–7.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s reliance on Chong is misplaced
because, among other things, Chong does not disclose a KDM generator that
creates an exhibition KDM using a geographic rule in a DKDM. App. Br.
7–9. Appellants further argue Denning’s location identity attribute and
Fransdonk’s geographic access criteria are not geographic rules included in a
DKDM that affect an exhibition KDM’s distribution. Id. at 10. Appellants
add that because Denning and Fransdonk are directed to two different
principles of operation, modifying Wetmore with the teachings of Denning
and Fransdonk changes Wetmore’s principle of operation. Id. at 10–11.

ISSUES
I. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that Wetmore, Chong, Denning, and Fransdonk collectively would have
taught or suggested a KDM generator operable to create an exhibition KDM
for a composition using a geographic rule in a DKDM that enables an
exhibition KDM distribution system to distribute the exhibition KDM to
only at least some target digital cinema players in a unique region?
II. Is the Examiner’s proposed combination supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s
obviousness conclusion?
Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

5
ANALYSIS
On this record, we see no error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claim 1. We begin by noting the rejection relies on the
combination of Wetmore, Chong, Denning, and Fransdonk. See Final Act.
2–6. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based upon the
teachings of a combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Thus, any arguments attacking Wetmore,
Chong, Denning, and Fransdonk individually, when the rejection relies on
the combination of these references to teach or suggest particular claimed
features, are unpersuasive for failing to address the collective teachings of
the references.
In the rejection, the Examiner relies principally on Wetmore for
teaching many elements of claim 1, including a KDM generator operable to
create an exhibition KDM using a rule. Final Act. 4 (citing Wetmore ¶¶ 29–
32; Figs. 1, 7). The Examiner, however, acknowledges that Wetmore’s
exhibition KDM is not created using a received DKDM by a KDM
generator. Id. at 3. The Examiner nevertheless cites Chong to show that a
KDM generator operable to create an exhibition KDM using a received
DKDM is known in the art. Id. at 3–4 (citing Chong ¶¶ 5, 9, 13, 58–59; Fig.
2). Thus, the Examiner proposes to combine Chong’s teaching with
Wetmore, such that the combined system predictably yields a KDM
generator operable to create an exhibition KDM using a rule in a received
DKDM.
The Examiner, however, acknowledges that the Wetmore/Chong
system does not disclose a geographic rule in the received DKDM (id. at 4),
Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

6
but nevertheless cites Denning to show that such a geographic rule is known
in the art (id. at 4–5 (citing Denning ¶¶ 11, 14, 42–43, 55–58, 74; Figs. 1–3,
7–8)). Thus, the Examiner proposes to combine Denning’s teaching with the
Wetmore/Chong system, such that the combined system predictably yields a
KDM generator operable to create an exhibition KDM using a geographic
rule in a received DKDM.
Appellants’ arguments regarding (1) Chong’s alleged individual
shortcoming with respect to a KDM generator operable to create an
exhibition KDM using a geographic rule in a received DKDM (App. Br. 8;
Reply Br. 2), and (2) Denning’s alleged individual shortcoming with respect
to a geographic rule included in a received DKDM (App. Br. 10) are
unavailing. Appellants’ arguments regarding Chong’s and Denning’s
alleged shortcomings are, therefore, unpersuasive, for the rejection is not
based solely on these references alone, but rather on the collective teachings
of Wetmore, Chong, and Denning as previously discussed. See Merck, 800
F.2d at 1097.
The Examiner acknowledges the Wetmore/Chong/Denning system
does not disclose the exhibition KDM distribution system is enabled to
distribute the exhibition KDM to only at least some target digital cinema
players in a unique region. Final Act. 5. The Examiner, however, cites
Fransdonk to show that distributing content to only some target players in a
unique region is known in the art. Id. (citing Fransdonk ¶¶ 19, 55–56, 370–
373, 377, 379; Figs. 1–2, 24). Thus, the Examiner proposes combining
Fransdonk’s teaching with the Wetmore/Chong/Denning system, such that
the combined system predictably yields an exhibition KDM distribution
Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

7
system to distribute an exhibition KDM to only some target digital cinema
players in a unique region.
Appellants’ arguments regarding (1) Fransdonk’s alleged individual
shortcoming with respect to a geographic rule included in a received
DKDM, and (2) Denning’s and Fransdonk’s alleged individual shortcomings
with respect to a geographic rule affecting the distribution of an exhibition
KDM (App. Br. 9–10) are unavailing. Here, the rejection is not based solely
on Denning or Fransdonk alone, but rather on the collective teachings of
Wetmore, Chong, Denning, and Fransdonk discussed above. See Merck, at
1097.
Nor do we find availing Appellants’ contention that modifying
Wetmore’s system with the teachings of Denning and Fransdonk would
require changing the principle of operation of Wetmore’s system. App. Br.
10–11; Reply Br. 4. To be sure, if a proposed modification or combination
of the prior art changes the principle of operation of the prior art invention
being modified, the teachings of the references are insufficient to render the
claims obvious. In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813 (CCPA 1959); see also
MANUAL OF PATENT EXAMINING PROCEDURE (MPEP) 2143.01 (9th ed. Rev.
08.2017, Jan. 2018) (citing Ratti). But Appellants have not shown, apart
from mere attorney argument, that combining Wetmore with Denning and
Fransdonk would somehow impermissibly change Wetmore’s principle of
operation. It is well settled that mere lawyer argument and conclusory
statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little
probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Lastly, we find unavailing Appellants’ contention that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not combine the Wetmore-Chong system with the
Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

8
teachings of Denning and Fransdonk “because one of ordinary skill in the art
would likely be satisfied with the security already provided by the Wetmore-
Chong system.” Reply Br. 3 (emphasis added). Not only is this contention
merely speculative and unsubstantiated on this record, the Examiner
explains why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
apply the teachings of Denning and Fransdonk in the manner proposed.
Final Act. 5. Notably, the Examiner concludes it would have been obvious
to include the teachings of (1) Denning “to improve the system for
distributing digital media to exhibitors of Wetmore for the predictable result
of providing location-based encryption for specific geographic areas for
enhanced security of data” and (2) Fransdonk “to improve the system for
distributing digital media to exhibitors of Wetmore for the predictable result
of delivering content and keys to properly authorized users and geographic
locations.” Id. (citing Denning ¶ 11; Fransdonk ¶ 379).
Therefore, to the extent Appellants contend that the Examiner’s
rationale to combine the references is based solely on teachings gleaned
from Appellants’ disclosure (Reply Br. 4), we disagree. See In re
McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971) (noting so long as any
judgment on obviousness (1) takes into account only knowledge which was
within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention
was made, and (2) does not include knowledge gleaned only from
applicant’s disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper). On this record, the
Examiner’s articulated reason to combine the references is not based on
impermissible hindsight, but rather uses prior art elements predictably
according to their established functions to improve distributing digital media
to exhibitors—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

9
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The Examiner’s proposed combination of the
cited references is, therefore, supported by articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1, and claims 3–18 not argued separately with particularity.3

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WETMORE, CHONG,
DENNING, FRANSDONK, AND LEE

We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 2. Final
Act. 14–15. Despite nominally arguing this claim separately, Appellants
allege that the additional cited reference fails to cure the purported
deficiencies of claim 1. App. Br. 20. We are not persuaded by these
arguments for the reasons previously discussed.

THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER WETMORE, DENNING,
AND FRANSDONK

We sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent
claim 19. Final Act. 15–17. In the rejection, the Examiner relies principally
on Wetmore for teaching many elements of claim 19, including an
exhibition KDM received from an exhibition KDM distribution system. Id.
at 15 (citing Wetmore ¶¶ 5–6; Figs. 1, 7). The Examiner also finds the
Wetmore exhibition KDM comprises (1) data identifying a digital cinema

3 Although Appellants nominally argue claims 7–12 separately (App. Br.
11–15; Reply Br. 5) and claims 13–18 separately (App. Br. 15–19; Reply Br.
5), Appellants reiterate arguments made for claim 1. We, therefore, group
these claims accordingly. We treat other nominally-argued claims similarly,
and group those claims accordingly.
Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

10
package (DCP); (2) data allowing a digital cinema player to play the DCP,
and (3) a rule. Id. (citing Wetmore ¶¶ 5–6, 29–32, 38; Figs. 1, 9).
Although the Examiner acknowledges that Wetmore’s rule is not
geographic, the Examiner cites Denning for teaching this feature. Id. at
15–16 (citing Denning ¶¶ 11, 14, 42–43, 55–58, 74; Figs. 1–3, 7–8). The
Examiner also acknowledges that Wetmore’s exhibition KDM distribution
system is not enabled by a regional restriction received from a mastering site
to distribute the exhibition KDM to only digital cinema players located in a
unique region. Id. at 16. The Examiner nevertheless cites Fransdonk to
show that a system enabled by a regional restriction received from a
mastering site to distribute content to only digital cinema players located in a
unique region is known in the art. Id. at 17 (citing Fransdonk ¶¶ 19, 55–56,
370–373, 377, 379; Figs. 1–2, 24). Thus, the Examiner proposes to combine
Fransdonk’s teaching with the Wetmore/Denning system, such that the
combined system predictably yields an exhibition KDM distribution system
enabled by a regional restriction received from a mastering site to distribute
the exhibition KDM to only digital cinema players located in a unique
region.
Appellants’ arguments regarding Fransdonk’s alleged individual
shortcoming with respect to a regional restriction received from a mastering
site to distribute an exhibition KDM to only digital cinema players located in
a unique region is unavailing. App. Br. 21–22; Reply Br. 5–6. Here, the
rejection is not based solely on Fransdonk alone, but rather on the collective
teachings of Wetmore, Denning, and Fransdonk. See Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097.
Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

11
Nor do we find availing Appellants’ contention that modifying
Wetmore’s system with the teachings of Denning, and then with the
teachings of Fransdonk would require a change in principle of operation of
Wetmore’s system for the reasons discussed previously. App. Br. 22; Reply
Br. 7.
Lastly, we find unavailing Appellants’ contention that the Examiner’s
rationale to combine the references is based solely on teachings gleaned
from Appellants’ disclosure. See Reply Br. 6; see also McLaughlin, 443
F.2d at 1395. The Examiner provides the same rationale to combine
Wetmore, Denning, and Fransdonk as discussed for claim 1. Compare Final
Act. 5, with id. at 16–17. On this record, the Examiner’s articulated reason
to combine the references uses prior art elements predictably according to
their established functions to improve distributing digital media to
exhibitors—an obvious improvement. See id. at 5, 16–17; see also KSR, 550
U.S. at 417. The Examiner’s proposed combination of the cited references
is, therefore, supported by articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion.
Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 19 and claims 20–24 not argued separately with particularity.4

4 Although Appellants nominally argue claims 22–24 separately (App. Br.
23–25; Reply Br. 7), Appellants reiterate arguments made for claim 19. We,
therefore, group these claims accordingly. We treat other nominally-argued
claims similarly, and group those claims accordingly.
Appeal 2018-007948
Application 14/465,119

12

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–24 under § 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–24 is affirmed.5
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

5 We leave to the Examiner to determine whether claims 19–21 are directed
to software per se, and thus do not fall under any of the four statutory
categories under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See MPEP § 2106.03(I). Notably, claim
19 recites “[a]n exhibition key delivery message (KDM) received from an
exhibition KDM distribution system, comprising: data . . . at least one
geographic rule . . . and data . . . .” App. Br. 32 (Claims App’x) (emphases
added).