Ex Parte Amodeo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2015

11360927 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GUILLERMO O. AMODEO, ELIZABETH W. CAMERON,
GAVIN M. CAMERON, and MANJIT S. SAGGU

____________

Appeal 2012-006895
Application 11/360,927
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

SUMMARY
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–12, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. Claims 13–15 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Lenovo Corporation.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2012-006895
Application 11/360,927

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants describe the claimed invention as follows:
A method for providing mobile subscription content
access is disclosed. Initially, subscription contents are stored in
a server. The subscription content can be accessed via any
terminal coupled to the server by a communication link. In
response to an access to any of the subscription contents on an
encrypted subscription channel via a terminal, a determination is
made as to whether or not a valid receiver is found in the
proximity of the terminal. If a valid receiver is found in the
proximity of the terminal, an encryption/decryption key is
transferred to the valid receiver. With the encryption/decryption
key, the subscription contents on an encrypted subscription
channel can be accessed via the terminal and the valid receiver.

See Abstract.
Claims 1 and 7 are independent claims.
Representative Claim
Claim 1, which is representative,2 reads as follows:
1. A method for providing mobile subscription content
access to a subscriber, said method comprising:

storing subscription contents in a server, wherein said
subscription content can be accessed via a plurality of terminals
coupled to said server by a communication link;

in response to an attempt by a receiver to access any of
said subscription contents on an encrypted subscription channel
via a wireless connection to one of said plurality of terminals,
determining at said one terminal whether or not said receiver is
a valid receiver; and

2 Appellants argue claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, and 11 together. See Appeal Br. 4–7.
Appeal 2012-006895
Application 11/360,927

3
in a determination that said receiver is a valid receiver,
wirelessly transferring an encryption/decryption key by said
one terminal to said valid receiver, wherein said
encryption/decryption key permits said valid receiver to access
said subscription contents on said encrypted subscription
channel via said one terminal.

References

Khedouri

US 2006/0008256 A1 Published Jan.
12, 2006
Finn US 2006/0208066 A1 Published Sep.
21, 2006
Friedman US 7,540,015 B2 May 26, 2009
Kuz US 7,953,871 B2 May 31, 2011

Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1–3, 5, 7–9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Khedouri and Kuz.
Claims 4 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Khedouri,Kuz and Finn.
Claims 6 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Khedouri, Kuz and Friedman.
Issue on Appeal
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief3 and Reply Brief present us
with the following issue:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding Kuz teaches the limitations
“determining at said one terminal whether or not said receiver is

3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, filed on Jan. 11, 2012
(“Appeal Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on Feb. 13, 2012 (“Ans.”),
Appellants’ Reply Brief, filed on Mar. 19, 2012 (“Reply Br.”), and the
original Specification, filed on Feb. 23, 2006 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-006895
Application 11/360,927

4
a valid receiver” and “in a determination that said receiver is a
valid receiver, wirelessly transferring an encryption/decryption
key by said one terminal to said receiver,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Have Appellants waived the arguments first raised in the Reply
Brief in regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 10,
and 12?

ANALYSIS
Issue 1
Appellants contend Khedouri and Kuz do not teach the limitations
“determining at said one terminal whether or not said receiver is a valid
receiver” and “in a determination that said receiver is a valid receiver,
wirelessly transferring an encryption/decryption key by said one terminal to
said receiver,” as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 4–6. Appellants also
contend “the Examiner’s interpretation of Kuz’s server as the claimed
terminal in Claim 1 would conflict with the claimed server in Claim 1.” Id.
at 6. The Examiner finds that Kuz teaches the “determining” and
“transferring” steps of claim 1 and that there is no conflict with claim 1 as
argued by Appellants. See Ans. 12–13.
We agree with the Examiner’s findings. Kuz teaches a server for
controlling access by a mobile device to a data service (mobile access
control server 120) and a content server 130, through which one or more
data services may be provided using data in encrypted form. Id. at 12; Kuz
Figure 1 and 5:35–46. As the Examiner finds, upon receiving an access
request from a mobile device, the mobile access control server determines
Appeal 2012-006895
Application 11/360,927

5
whether the mobile device is allowed access to the requested data service.
See id. 12–13; Kuz 3:46–49, Figure 3 at 312. The Examiner further finds
“the mobile access control server acts as the claimed ‘terminal’ in
determining if the mobile device is a valid receiver.” Id. at 13. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner that Kuz teaches the claimed “determining” step
because the mobile access control server performs the claimed function of
the terminal of determining whether the mobile device is a valid receiver.
We disagree with Appellant’s argument that interpreting the mobile access
control server as the claimed “terminal” conflicts with claim 1. Claim 1
distinguishes between a “server,” which stores subscription contents, and a
“terminal,” which determines whether a receiver is a valid receiver. Thus,
there is no conflict because, like claim 1, Kuz distinguishes between a
device (the mobile access control server) that performs the function of the
claimed “terminal” to determine whether a receiver is a valid receiver and a
“server” (the content server) that stores data.
The Examiner further finds Kuz teaches the “transferring” step of
claim 1 because Kuz discloses the mobile access control server providing
“access information” to the mobile device, i.e., the receiver, after
determining the validity of the device, which information includes a session
key. See id.; Kuz 3:57–65. We agree with the Examiner’s findings.
Issue 2
Appellants assert the combination of Khedouri, Kuz, and Finn does
not make the step of “said determining further includes checking for a valid
smartcard in said receiver” in claims 4 and 10 obvious. See Reply Br. 2.
Appellants also assert the combination of Khedouri, Kuz, and Friedman does
not make the step of “said determining further includes checking biometrics
Appeal 2012-006895
Application 11/360,927

6
of a holder of said valid receiver to verify the identity of said holder” in
claims 6 and 12 obvious. Id.
Appellants did not present the arguments directed to the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 4, 6, 10, and 12 in the Appeal Brief. Instead, they are
raised for the first time by Appellants in the Reply Brief. Thus, as the
Examiner has not been provided a chance to respond, and in the absence of a
showing of good cause by Appellants, these arguments are deemed waived.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011) (second sentence); Ex parte Borden,
93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (“[p]roperly interpreted,
the Rules do not require the Board to take up a belated argument that has not
been addressed by the Examiner, absent a showing of good cause.”).
Appellants have made no showing of good cause in this record.
Accordingly, we do not consider Appellants new arguments in the Reply
Brief concerning claims 4, 6, 10, and 12, and we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of those claims.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–12 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

tj