Ex Parte CandeloreDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 26, 201812454912 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/454,912 0512612009 36738 7590 ROGITZ & AS SOCIA TES 4420 Hotel Circle Court SUITE 230 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 04/30/2018 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Brant L. Candelore 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. 200802569.02 9257 EXAMINER LOUIE, OSCAR A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2445 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/30/2018 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): Noelle@rogitz.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com J ohn@rogitz.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRANT L. CANDELORE Appeal2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-15 and 17-24, which are all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellant identifies Sony Corp. and Sony Electronics Inc. as the real parties in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 Introduction Appellant explains that smartcards that use encryption technology to control access to pay-TV content are subject to intense hacking attacks by pirates seeking to avoid paying subscription fees, using techniques such as cloning, three musketeering, wizarding, and droning. Spec. 1:25-2:33. Appellant discloses embodiments in which "[g]eneration of secret keys is carried out in a smartcard for use by a receiver device's main processor, or alternatively, decryption processing for selectively encrypted content is carried out in the smartcard itself in order to thwart hacking and pirating of protected video content." Abstract. Some embodiments use the receiver's processing power along with the smartcard to assist in thwarting hackers. Spec. 27:7-28:2. Embodiments that support use of new smartcard decryption algorithms in legacy receivers can pass some or all of a decryption algorithm from the smartcard to the receiver for execution by the receiver's processor. Spec. 28: 16-27; Fig. 9. Independent claims 1 and 12 are illustrative of the claims on appeal: 1. A decryption method, comprising: at a video content receiver device, receiving a stream of digital video content which is selectively encrypted such that the digital video content contains a plurality of encrypted segments of the digital video content that are encrypted using a predetermined encryption method; demultiplexing the digital video content to select the encrypted segments; buffering the encrypted segments of the digital video content in a buffer memory that is accessible by a main processor forming part of the video content receiver device; the main processor selecting the encrypted segments of the digital video content and sending the encrypted segments of 2 Appeal 2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 the digital video content to a smartcard over a smartcard interface; at the smartcard, receiving the encrypted segments of the digital video content and decrypting the encrypted segments of the digital video content to produce decrypted segments of the digital video content; the main processor receiving the decrypted segments of the digital video content from the smartcard over the smartcard interface; and the main processor storing the decrypted segments of the digital video content to the buffer memory. 12. A decryption method, comprising: at a video content receiver device, receiving a stream of digital video content which is selectively encrypted such that the digital video content contains a plurality of encrypted segments of the digital video content that are encrypted using a predetermined encryption method; storing the encrypted segments of the digital video content in a memory that is accessible by a processor forming part of the video content receiver device; at the processor forming part of the video content receiver device, receiving a decryption key from a smartcard; at the smartcard passing at least a portion of the decryption algorithm that uses the key to carry out decryption of the encrypted segments of the digital video content to the video content receiver device's processor; the processor applying the key to decrypt the encrypted segments of the digital video content using the decryption algorithm and bypassing a hardware decryption engine that comprises a part of the video content receiver device; and storing the decrypted segments of the digital video content to the memory. App. Br. 31, 33-34 (Claims App'x). 3 Appeal 2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 Rejections & References Claims 1, 4--7, 10, 11, and21-24 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Candelore (US 2004/0181666 Al; Sept. 16, 2004) and Chaney (US 6,035,037; Mar. 7, 2000). Final Act. 7-21. 2 Claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 12-15, and 17-20 stand rejected under§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Candelore, Chaney, and Millard (WO 00/46994; Aug. 10, 2000). Final Act. 21-26. 3 ANALYSIS Independent Claims 1 and 11 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Chaney teaches "the main processor selecting the encrypted segments of the digital video content and sending the encrypted segments of the digital video content to a smartcard over a smartcard interface." Final Act. 9 (citing Chaney 3:35-37, 4:5-17, 8:57----67) (emphasis omitted). Appellant argues the Examiner errs in this finding because, in the system of Chaney, "the unencrypted payload data is also passed to the smart card." App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 2. Appellant's argument is unpersuasive. Before addressing Appellant's argument regarding Chaney, a review of aspects of Candelore's disclosure is helpful. Candelore discloses a dual- encryption system for digital television signals in which a head-end creates a video stream by multiplexing video packets that are either unencrypted or encrypted with one of two different encryption schemes. See Candelore 2 The Examiner erroneously omits claim 11 from the summary for this rejection; this is a harmless error. 3 The Examiner erroneously omits claim 8 and includes claim 15 in the summary for this rejection; this is a harmless error. 4 Appeal 2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 i-fi-f 123-25. A set-top box receives the video stream sent by the head-end, demultiplexes it, and buffers the demultiplexed video packets into memory for processing by a CPU. Candelore i-f 132. Appellant does not argue error in the Examiner's finding that Candelore discloses claim 1 's requirement for "demultiplexing the digital video content to select the encrypted segments." See Final Act. 8 (citing Candelore i-f 125). Chaney discloses a pay-TV receiver system that uses a smart card 180 for decrypting encrypted video content provided to the smart card under control of the system's microcontroller 160. See Chaney Fig. 1. We agree with the Examiner that Chaney's disclosure of a microcontroller that controls sending encrypted video packets to the smart card teaches "the main processor selecting the encrypted segments of the digital video content" and sending them "to a smartcard over a smartcard interface," as recited. Final Act. 9; Ans. 3. Selecting and sending the unencrypted packets does not negate the fact that Chaney selects and sends the encrypted packets. Appellant also argues the Examiner errs in finding Chaney teaches "the main processor receiving the decrypted segments of the digital video content from the smartcard over the smartcard interface," as recited. App. Br. 13-14. Specifically, Appellant contends that in Fig. 11 of Chaney, it appears that the data are output from the smart cards through card reader 190 to transport unit 120. Fig. 1 of Chaney also appears to show that the interaction between the processor 160 and the smart card 180 is limited to communication with security controller 183. Id. at 13. This is also unpersuasive. Chaney's Figure 1 is instructive and is reproduced below: 5 Appeal 2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 SlN ~---- -~~--~----- - ~--~-~ f ..----........................ • : DESGRAMBtrn smmm ! ; COOHGHER • : 180 L~·~1~: ·- --- -~-- -- -~!~L __ J ""--·i.___ _ lfil__ ,,,,,-.....l FIG. 1 I "FIG. 1 shows, in block diagram form, a signal processing system including a smart card that provides both entitlement processing and descrambling .... " Chaney 3:29--31 (including an added dashed box around all processing system components except for the smart card 180). Appellant reads Chaney too narrowly. Separating out the smart card 180, the remainder of Figure 1, as shown in the large dashed box, is a processing system not including the smart card. This processing system receives "decrypted segments of the digital video content from the smartcard over the smartcard interface," as recited by claim 1. The Examiner's finding that these components of Chaney teach the recited "main processor" is consistent with the expansive, non-limiting definition of "processor" in Appellant's Specification. See Spec 6:7-11 ("The term 'processor', 'controller', 'CPU', 'Computer' and the like as used herein encompasses both hard programmed, special purpose, general purpose and programmable 6 Appeal 2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 devices and may encompass a plurality of such devices or a single device in either a distributed or centralized configuration without limitation."). Thus, we discern no error by the Examiner in mapping multiple components of Chaney's processing system to claim 1 's recited "main processor." Appellant further argues the Examiner errs in finding Chaney teaches "the main processor storing the decrypted segments of the digital video content to the buffer memory," as recited by claim 1. App. Br. 14 (contending the cited portion of Chaney (10:60-11 :3; see Final Act. 9) does not support the Examiner's finding). Appellant's argument is again unpersuasive. Appellant's argument overlooks that the Examiner previously relies upon Candelore for teaching "buffering the encrypted segments of the digital video content in a buffer memory that is accessible by a main processor forming part of the video content receiver device." Final Act. 8 (citing Candelore i-fi-166, 132, Fig. 14, Claim 8) (emphasis omitted). Each cited reference must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981 ). Here, Candelore teaches a main processor that accesses encrypted video packets stored in the buffer memory. As discussed above, Chaney teaches a main processor that decrypts the video packets using a smartcard, and further teaches storing decrypted information in memory. See, e.g., Chaney 10:60-11:2. In view of these teachings, Appellant's argument that the cited art does not teach claim 1 's requirement of "the main processor 7 Appeal 2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 storing the decrypted segments of the digital video content to the buffer memory" is unpersuasive. Appellant also presents substantially the same arguments for claim 11 as those discussed above for claim 1. See App. Br. 15-17. These arguments are unpersuasive for the same reasons just discussed. Appellant additionally argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 11 by finding Candelore teaches "demultiplexing the digital video content to select the encrypted segments," as recited. Id. at 17. This argument is unpersuasive. Candelore's dual- encryption system that multiplexes encrypted and unencrypted video packets at a head-end and then demultiplexes them at the set-top box, as discussed supra, teaches this requirement. See Candelore i-fi-f 123-25, 132. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. We also, therefore, sustain the rejection of dependent claims 4--7 and 10, for which Appellant offers no argument separate from claim 1. App. Br. 15. Dependent Claims 2, 3, 8, and 9 Claim 2 recites: [ t ]he method according to claim 1, wherein before the encrypted segments of the digital video content are sent over the smartcard interface, the main processor forming part of the video content receiver device encrypts the encrypted segments of the digital video content using a local key and after reception by the smartcard, the encrypted segments of the digital video content are decrypted with the local key. App. Br. 31 (Claims App'x). The Examiner finds Millard's "session key" teaches the recited "local key" of claim 2. Final Act. 21-22 (citing Millard 2:8-10); see also Ans. 7. Appellant contends the Examiner errs because Millard's use of a session key 8 Appeal 2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 does not teach the subject matter calling "for the main processor of the receiver device to encrypt encrypted segments of the digital video content with a local key and for the smartcard to decrypt ... using the local key." App. Br. 23. We agree with Appellant. Millard discloses encrypting a control word stream using a "session key" before passing the control word stream to a smart card. Millard 2:5-8. Millard teaches separately encrypting the session key using a public key that is part of a private/public encryption scheme. Id. at 8-10. The encrypted session key is passed to the smart card, which uses a corresponding private key to decrypt it. Id. at 10-11. The Examiner does not explain how or why Millard's encrypting of a session key teaches use of a local key to "encrypt[] the encrypted segments of the digital video content," as recited by claim 2. The only apparent suggestion of any second level of encryption in the relied-upon disclosure of Millard is the public/ private key encryption of the session key. See Millard 2:5-12. The Examiner does not explain how this teaches or suggests using the same local key to perform a second level of encryption on already encrypted video segments prior to sending them to a smart card, as recited by claim 2. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 2. We also, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 8, which depends from claim 2. Appellant also argues claim 3 includes a requirement "for the main processor of the receiver device to encrypt encrypted segments of the digital video content." App. Br. 23. This is incorrect. Claim 3 recites: [ t ]he method according to claim 1, wherein before the decrypted segments of the digital video content are received from the smartcard at the main processor forming part of the video content receiver device, the smartcard encrypts the 9 Appeal 2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 decrypted segments of the digital video content with a local key and after reception by the processor forming part of the video content receiver device, the segments of the digital video content are decrypted with a local key. App. Br. 31-32 (Claims App'x). Appellant's argument is unpersuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, and, therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 3. We also, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 9, which depends from claim 3, and for which Appellant offers no separate argument. Independent Claims 12 and 21-24 Method claim 12 recites, inter alia, the step of "at the smartcard passing at least a portion of the decryption algorithm that uses the key to carry out decryption of the encrypted segments of the digital video content to the video content receiver device's processor." App. Br. 33-34. Method claim 21 recites a similar requirement, differing only in that the key is a "content decryption key." Id. at 35. The Examiner relies on Chaney for teaching this requirement. Final Act. 6, 15, 23-24 (citing Chaney 2:35-55, 3:35-37, 4:5-17, 11:40-55); Ans. 5, 7 (additionally citing Chaney 2:12-20, 11:3-15). Appellant argues that the Examiner errs because there is "no such disclosure [in] Chaney at the cited locations" and that Chaney "fails to make any disclosure of passing a portion of the decryption algorithm to a receiver device's processor." App. Br. 18; see also App. Br. 24--25; Reply Br. 3--4. We agree with Appellant. The Examiner has not directed us to any disclosure in Chaney that teaches a smart card passing all or part of a decryption algorithm to a receiver. The Examiner's findings and 10 Appeal 2016-003284 Application 12/454,912 explanations in support of the rejection provide no reasonable rationale for how or why Chaney suggests this recited requirement. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 12 and 21. For the same reason we do not sustain the rejections of independent claims 22- 24, which include similar limitations, see App. Br. 36-37 (Claims App'x), or of claims 13-15 and 17-20, which depend from claim 12. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11, and we reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 2, 8, 12-15, and 17-24. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 11 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation