Wim Mooij et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 1, 2019

14387213 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 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.
14/387,213 02/03/2015 Wim Mooij 14-30222-US 3970
128144 7590 10/01/2019
Rimon PC
One Embarcadero Center
Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94111
EXAMINER
JONES, WILLIAM B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2019 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):
docketing.rimonlaw@clarivate.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
patentdocketing@rimonlaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WIM MOOIJ and ANDREW AUGUSTINE WAJS
____________

Appeal 2018-005976
Application 14/387,2131
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, JASON J. CHUNG, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–14, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. Claims 15–18 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellants identify Irdeto B.V. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-005976
Application 14/387,213

2
BACKGROUND
The Claimed Invention
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to digital rights management,
and specifically, to controlling access to streamed content. Spec. 1. Claims
1, 13, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and
the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (with disputed
limitations emphasized):
1. A method, implemented by a system of one or more
processors, of controlling access to streaming content by a
plurality of receivers that are external to the system, the
streaming content including a sequence of portions, the method
comprising:
for each receiver in the plurality of receivers, providing
that receiver with access to first control information for that
receiver, wherein the first control information enables that
receiver to access a first portion of the streaming content, each
receiver being provided an individually identifiable version of
the first portion of the streaming content;
receiving information identifying one of the plurality of
receivers as an identified receiver which is no longer authorized
to access the streaming content;
updating the first control information so as to provide
updated control information for each receiver, the updated
control information being associated with a second portion of
the streaming content, wherein the second portion of the
streaming content is subsequent to the first portion of streaming
content in the sequence of portions of the streaming content;
and
allowing each receiver to fetch the updated control
information for that receiver;

Appeal 2018-005976
Application 14/387,213

3
wherein the updated control information provided for the
identified receiver is invalid such that the identified receiver is
unable to fully access the second portion of the content.
App. Br. 20 (Claims App.) (emphases added).

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–3, 7–11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kiayias et al. (US 2010/0043081 A1;
published Feb. 18, 2010) (“Kiayias”). Final Act. 6–11.
Claims 4–6 and 12 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Kiayias and Bi et al. (US 2004/0024688 A1; published
Feb. 5, 2004) (“Bi”). Final Act. 11–14.
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of the arguments
raised in the Briefs. On the record before us, we cannot sustain the
Examiner’s rejections.
Rejection Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Kiayias discloses
“updated control information” that makes a receiver “unable to fully access
the second portion of [streamed] content,” as recited in claim 1.2 App. Br.
7–12 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 5. Specifically, Appellants argue that
although Kiayias discloses a key revocation system whereby a receiver
cannot redistribute content associated with the revoked key, such a key
revocation system would not (and does not) prevent access to a portion of

2 Appellants argue all of the claims under this rejection as a group, and we
choose claim 1 as representative of the group. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv);
App. Br. 7–18.
Appeal 2018-005976
Application 14/387,213

4
content, as required by the claim. App. Br. 7–12. Thus, according to
Appellants, the keys disclosed in Kiayias cannot be the claimed “control
information,” nor can the content itself be “control information” because the
Examiner separately mapped the content stream in Kiayias to the “content”
in claim 1. Reply Br. 5. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments.
The Examiner finds that Kiayias discloses “rebroadcast of embedded
(marked) data,” which is “part of the control information supplied in the
rebroadcast,” i.e., “updated control information.” Ans. 8 (emphasis added);
Kiayias ¶¶ 19, 32, 75. The Examiner further finds that, as a result of this
“updated” control information, a “next portion” of the content stream would
“not be available to the pirate [identified by an iterative marking process] to
rebroadcast since the keys could not decrypt that second portion.” Ans. 8;
Kiayias ¶¶ 81, 85, Fig. 5. Claim 1, however, does not recite the prevention
of rebroadcasting content or prevention of decrypting keys. Claim 1 recites
that the identified receiver is “unable to fully access” the second portion of
the content. App. Br. 20 (emphasis added). The portions of Kiayias cited by
the Examiner describe an iterative method of preventing certain users from
rebroadcasting content, App. Br. 11, but not preventing access to any portion
of the content stream.
For example, Kiayias discloses that “[w]hen a subset [of stream
recipients] can no longer be split, this implies that the recipient included in
that subset is, with high probability, the recipient corresponding to the
unauthorized distributor.” Kiayias ¶ 84 (emphasis added). Kiayias then
describes that keys are revoked as to that recipient, in order to prevent
retransmission (of the content stream already received), id. ¶¶ 85–87, but the
Examiner does not identify any portion of Kiayias disclosing that the
Appeal 2018-005976
Application 14/387,213

5
recipient (i.e., the identified receiver) cannot access the second portion of
content. Indeed, the cited portion of Kiayias implies that the broadcast
stream is continued, unabated, but as a result of key revocation, a particular
receiver no longer will have retransmission ability. Id. ¶¶ 81–82.
Disclosing retransmission control (or playback control, or copy control),
however, is not the same as disclosing access control as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as
anticipated by Kiayias. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the
anticipation rejection of the remaining claims.
Rejection Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
For the reasons discussed above, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of dependent claims 4–6 and 12, which relies on the same error
regarding Kiayias as discussed above.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–14.

REVERSED