Ex Parte Chen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 8, 201611681965 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 11/681,965 43471 7590 ARRIS Group, Inc, 3871 Lakefield Drive Suwanee, GA 30024 0310512007 02/10/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kuang Ming Chen 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. BCS04455 8218 EXAMINER HOFFMAN, BRANDON S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2433 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/10/2016 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): arris. docketing@ arrisi. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KUANG MING CHEN, ERIK JOHN ELSTERMANN, ALEXANDER MEDVINSKY, and PETR PETERKA Appeal2014-002962 Application 11/681,965 Technology Center 2400 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges. JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 14, which are all the claims pending in the present patent application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify General Instrument Corporation and ARRIS Group, Inc. as the real parties in interest. Br. 2. Appeal2014-002962 Application 11/681,965 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present patent application relates to security for data being broadcast. Spec. i-f 2.Claim 1 is illustrative (lettering and emphasis added): 1. A method of synchronizing an encrypted traffic key with encrypted data, the method comprising: [L 1] categorizing media flows received at a real time encryptor into traffic protection groups, wherein each traffic protection group comprises one or more media flows; accessing a key store that stores access rules for offered services and authorization encryption keys, wherein the authorization encryption keys are generated based on entitlement control; [L2] at a message generator, for each traffic protection group, generating a common traffic key for encrypting the one or more media flows in the traffic protection group, and [L3] synchronizing the common traffic key for both delivery to the real time encryptor and for encryption at the message generator, wherein the common traffic key is encrypted at the message generator with an authorization encryption key from the key store to generate an encrypted traffic key; at the real time encryptor, encrypting a traffic protection group with the common traffic key, wherein the encrypted traffic protection group is deliverable through a network to the device via a content stream; and at the message generator, generating a unique keystream message for each traffic protection group, wherein the encrypted traffic key and access rules are deliverable through the network to the device in the unique keystream message; wherein the authorization encryption key for decryption of the encrypted traffic key is provided to the device in a rights object. 2 Appeal2014-002962 Application 11/681,965 The Rejections Claims 1, 3, 5-9, 11, 12, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Son (US 2006/0206708 Al; published Sept. 14, 2006) and Saarikivi (US 7,706,534 B2; issued Apr. 27, 2010); Claims 2 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Son, Saarikivi and Kim (US 6,873,853 B2; issued Mar. 29, 2005). ANALYSIS Appellants contend the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Son and Saarikivi as follows: (i) Son does not teach or suggest limitation LI because "Son does not disclose categorizing media flows (e.g., audio or video streams) into bundles." (Br. 9); (ii) Saarikivi "describes that a transport encryption key may be changed; however, changing the encryption key does not correspond to the claimed generating of the common traffic key," as recited in limitation L2 (Br. 6); and (iii) With regard to limitation L3, "Son nowhere describes that the TEK is synchronized for both delivery to a real time encryptor and for encryption at a message generator." (Br. 8). We have considered the rejections in light of Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief, as well as the Examiner's Answer thereto. Appellants' arguments fail to persuade us of Examiner error. Instead, we agree with, and 3 Appeal2014-002962 Application 11/681,965 adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and reasons to the extent indicated below, and further emphasize the following. First Argument Appellants contend Son fails to teach or suggest the categorizing of media flows into traffic protection groups recited in limitation L 1. Br. 9. The Examiner responds: . . . Son indeed teaches packages that combine one or more services (content - i.e. audio-visual data) in [0046]. Saarikivi also teaches bundling programs or services into a channel package that is associated with purchase data (see col. 9 lines 49-67). This purchase data includes the KSM (keystream message) count that indicates the length of time that the encrypted package can be decrypted. As such both references teach traffic encryption groups (service bundles, packages) that contain one or more media flows. Ans. 9--10. Appellants do not provide a reply addressing the Examiner's alternative findings based on Saarikivi. Therefore, based on the record before us, Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner's findings that Saarikivi teaches or suggests limitation L 1. Second Argument Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding Saarikivi teaches or suggests the generating recited in limitation L2 because the cited portion of Saarikivi "describes that a transport encryption key may be changed; however, changing the encryption key does not correspond to the claimed generating of the common traffic key." Br. 6. Appellants elaborate, "[W]hat ... is lacking in Saarikivi's description, is the provider side of the encryption/decryption process. In particular, Saarikvi's functionality only 4 Appeal2014-002962 Application 11/681,965 applies to functionality of the receiving device (i.e., a handset or user device that receives content from a content provider)." Br. 7. In response, the Examiner finds, "[F]rom the receiver's point of view, the key is generated (sent by) by the service provider 150 in Saarikivi fig. 3, which necessarily includes a component that changes the key. Further, the mere selection of a new key is a type of generation." Ans. 8. As an initial matter of claim construction, we find Appellants have not defined in the claim or Specification the term "generation." During prosecution, claims are given "their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Applying this principle, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. Rather, we agree with the Examiner that, absent a limiting definition, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed generating of the common traffic key encompasses selecting a new key. We also disagree agree with Appellants that Saarikvi's functionality only applies to receiving device functionality. Br. 7. Saarikvi discloses both sending device functionality and receiving device functionality. For example, Saarikvi discloses encryption by the provider and decryption by the receiver: Access to the program may be regulated by encryption of the transmitted data. For example, the data may be encrypted by any number of encryption standards through use of an encryption key. At the receiver or user terminal, a key may be used to decrypt the encrypted data so that the content may be viewable at the receiver or user terminal. The key for decrypting the encrypted data may also be delivered via the same digital communications network and may also be encrypted. For the delivery of one or more keys also other 5 Appeal2014-002962 Application 11/681,965 digital communications networks can be used. Thus, an end user wishing to access or view the program or service may need to obtain the rights to the keys. Saarikivi, 4:21-32 (emphasis added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner's finding that Saarikivi teaches or suggests limitation L2. Final Act. 4. Third Argument Appellants contend the Examiner errs in finding Son teaches or suggests the synchronizing recited in limitation L3. Br. 8. Specifically, Appellants contend: Br. 8. Son ... at best describes that a traffic encryption key (TEK) is used for encrypting services .... Because the claimed message generator, which generates a common traffic key in Applicant's claims, is not present in Son's disclosure, therefore, Son cannot describe synchronizing TEK for both delivery to a real time encryptor and for encryption at that message generator. In the Final Rejection, the Examiner cited Saarikivi, not Son, for the claimed message generator. Final Act. 4. Moreover, in the subsequent Advisory Action, the Examiner further finds Saarikivi teaches or suggests the synchronizing recited in limitation L3, as follows: Saariviki [sic] teaches in fig. 4 an audio/video stream that is synchronized with a keystream. The keystream contains the encrypted TEKs that were used to encrypt the a/v stream. This is indicative of such a mechanism because there is a correspondence between the encrypted data stream and the encrypted TEK that are both sent to a device, see Saarikivi col. 6, lines 23-53. Further, as can be seen on fig. 2, the Traffic keys on the left side (the server side - not indicated in the figure, but corresponding to item 150 in fig.3) are fed both into the 6 Appeal2014-002962 Application 11/681,965 keystream message generation and the lpsec SR TP /ISMA encryption modules Both modules receive the same keys to encrypt the content and generate the encrypted keystream (i.e. there is a synchronization between the encryption and message generator). Adv. Act. 2. Appellants do not address the Examiner's alternative findings based on Saarikivi. Therefore, based on the record before us, Appellants fail to rebut the Examiner's findings that Saarikivi teaches or suggests limitation L3. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1. Appellants advance no further argument regarding dependent claims 2-9, 11, 12, and 14. Br. 10-11. Accordingly, we sustain these dependent claims for the same reasons discussed above. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-9, 11, 12, and 14. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation