Ex Parte Curtis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 31, 2016

12769028 (P.T.A.B. May. 31, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
121769,028 04/28/2010 Scott Curtis
71739 7590 06/01/2016
Concert Technology Corporation
5400 Trinity Road, Suite 303
Raleigh, NC 27607
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.
CT-MED-058/US (P434) 6775
EXAMINER
DADA, BEEMNET W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2435
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SCOTT CURTIS, GREGORY M. EVANS,
and KUNAL KANDEKAR
Appeal2015-000437
Application 12/769,028
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and ALEX S. YAP,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-22, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Eloy Technology,
LLC (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2015-000437
Application 12/769,028
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a system and method for
authenticating the delivery of a second data stream that corresponds to a
media item using a credential obtained from a first data stream
corresponding to the media stream (Spec. i-f 11 ).
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A method for obtaining digital content,
compnsmg:
obtaining a credential from a first data stream that
corresponds to a media item;
providing the credential to a content provider; and
in response to providing the credential to the content
provider, receiving from the content provider a second data
stream, wherein the second data stream corresponds to the
media item.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-13 and 15-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Morgan (US 2006/0092266 Al;
May 4, 2006) (Final Act. 3-5).
The Examiner further added Herley (US 6,976,166 B2; Dec. 13, 2005)
to reject claims 2, 8, 10, and 14 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
(Final Act. 5).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 9, and 15
First, Appellants contend sharing an image described in the cited
passages of Morgan does not disclose "obtaining a credential from a first
data stream that corresponds to a media item" because the recited term "a
2
Appeal2015-000437
Application 12/769,028
credential from a first data stream that corresponds to a media item" refers to
specific elements described below:
The phrase "media item" is defined in the specification to refer
to digital media content that may be rendered by a device for
presentation to a user. Examples of media items are broadcast
television shows, movies, songs, and the like. The phrase
"corresponds to" has been defined in the specification to mean
that "the data stream includes information used to render the
media item on a display device."
(App. Br. 11). Appellants further assert paragraph 32 of their Specification
defines the term "credential" with respect to rental of a movie as the
information included in the data stream wherein "the credential is obtained
from the data stream" (App. Br. 11-12).
In response, the Examiner explains "the term media item is interpreted
as "a still or moving image," the term "corresponds to" is interpreted as "an
[sic] low resolution image that is related to an image," and the term
credential is interpreted as "identity data and/ or authentication token"
(Ans. 3). Next, the Examiner finds obtaining the digital token for
authentication credentials from a low resolution image, which may be a
moving image in a home video, meets the disputed limitation related to the
first data stream (Ans. 4--5 (citing Morgan i-fi-f 16-18)).
We agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusion. We also
observe that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited step of
"obtaining a credential from a first data stream that corresponds to a media
item" encompasses obtaining the digital token from the first data stream
consisting of low resolution image or video. As further found by the
Examiner (Ans. 4) and contrary to Appellants' argument (see Reply Br. 4),
3
Appeal2015-000437
Application 12/769,028
Morgan discloses that the data stream corresponds to a media item as both
still and moving images such as a video (see Morgan i-f 16).
Second, Appellants contend Morgan does not disclose the recited "in
response to providing the credential to the content provider, receiving from
the content provider a second data stream, wherein the second data stream
corresponds to the media item" because Morgan's high resolution image is
not the same as the recited media stream (App. Br. 16). Appellants further
argue the feature of "embed a credential in a first data stream corresponding
to a media item" recited in claim 15 is not addressed by the Examiner (App.
Br. 17).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error. As
found by the Examiner, Morgan teaches the disputed limitation by
generating a reference 108 based on the data in the digital token 104, which
is used by the content provider for providing a second data stream in the
form of a high resolution image that corresponds to the media item 102
(Ans. 5---6). Regarding claim 15, we also agree with the Examiner's finding
that Morgan's disclosure of combining the digital token with low resolution
image 102LR teaches the recited "embed a credential in a first data stream"
(see Ans. 6).
For the above-stated reasons, we are not persuaded by Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred in finding the disclosure of Morgan
teaches the disputed features of claims 1, 9, and 15. Accordingly, we sustain
the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 9, and 15, as well as claims 3,
5-7, 11, 13, 16-22 which are not argued separately (see App. Br. 11-19).
4
Appeal2015-000437
Application 12/769,028
Claims 4 and 12
Appellants contend the Examiner's rejection does not address the
recited "extracting a digital watermark from the first data stream," nor
identifies a teaching in Morgan that relates to this limitation (App. Br. 20).
The Examiner finds Morgan's disclosure of extracting information, such as
the authentication credentials, from the digital token meets the disputed
claim limitation (Ans. 7).
We agree with the Examiner's findings. To the extent the term
"digital watermark" is described in Appellants' Specification as information
that includes a credential (see e.g., Spec. i-fi-f 14, 32), Morgan's digital token
which includes attributes such as information related to authentication
credentials and routing meets the disputed limitation.
For these reasons, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us that the
Examiner erred in finding the disclosure of Morgan teaches the disputed
features. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims
4 and 12.
Claims 2, 8, 10, and 14
Appellants contend the combination of Morgan with Herley is
improper because Herley provides no teaching to cure the alleged
deficiencies of Morgan and Herley teaches away from modifying Morgan to
combine the low resolution images and high resolution images (App. Br.
21 ). Furthermore, Appellants argue using the teachings of Herley to modify
Morgan would be unfit for Morgan's intended purpose because Herley
"splits a data file into two files with the second file being encrypted and
including content that precludes reconstruction of the file using only the first
file" (App. Br. 21-22).
5
Appeal2015-000437
Application 12/769,028
In response, the Examiner points out that Herley was relied on for
teaching that first and second files may be combined for outputting the
presentation for the combined data stream (Ans. 7 (citing Herley col. 3, 11.
47---61 )). The Examiner further reasons that the modifications to Morgan
according to the teachings of Herley would have been within the knowledge
of one of ordinary skill in the art (id.).
Appellants' contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner
improperly combined the teachings of Morgan with Herley to arrive at the
subject matter recited in claim 2. First, as stated by the Examiner (Ans. 7),
claim 2 does not require that the first data stream and the second data stream
be played without the other data stream (see App. Br. 21 ). Second, we agree
with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able
to combine the first and second data streams in Morgan such that the
necessary information for presenting a low or high resolution image is
extracted from the combination. The skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton," and this is a case in which the skilled artisan
would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of
a puzzle." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 421 (2007); see
also Final Act. 5; Ans. 7.
Therefore, Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2,
8, 10, and 14.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-22 is affirmed.
6
Appeal2015-000437
Application 12/769,028
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