Ex Parte Chen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 8, 2016

11681965 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2016)

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