Ex Parte Evans et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 7, 2011

10178804 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 7, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte GLENN F. EVANS and PAUL ENGLAND
_____________

Appeal 2009-011330
Application 10/178,804
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THOMAS S. HAHN, and ELENI MANTIS
MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1 through 59.
We reverse.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a secure video card. See pages 6 and 7 of
Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
Appeal 2009-011330
Application 10/178,804
2

providing encrypted video data on a video card, wherein the
video card contains memory comprising one or more secure and one
or more non-secure regions and the encrypted video card is stored in
the one or more secure regions; and

decrypting the encrypted video data on the video card at a point
in a data process where there is no programmatic access to the
decrypted video data.

REFERENCES
Salahshour US 5,577,125 Nov. 19, 1996
Squilla US 5,898,779 Apr. 27, 1999
Davis US 6,064,739 May 16, 2000
Bewick US 6,072,873 Jun. 6, 2000
Kim US 6,246,768 B1 Jun. 12, 2001
Nason US 2005/0204165 A1 Sep. 15, 2005
Porter US 7,055,038 B2 May 30, 2006

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 8, 10 through 19, 21, 23
through 30, 32, 36 through 43, 46, 49 through 51, and 53 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Davis in view Porter. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 4 through 16 of the Answer.1

1 Throughout this decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer dated October
31, 2008.
Appeal 2009-011330
Application 10/178,804
3

The Examiner has rejected claims 31 and 54 through 59 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Davis in view Porter and Squilla.
The Examiner’s rejection is on pages 16 through 19 of the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claims 9, 33, and 48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Davis in view Porter and Bewick. The
Examiner’s rejection is on pages 19 through 20 of the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claims 22, 34, 35, 44, 45, and 47 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Davis in view Porter and Kim. The
Examiner’s rejection is on pages 20 through 21 of the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Davis in view Porter and Nason. The Examiner’s rejection is
on pages 21 through 22 of the Answer.
The Examiner has rejected claim 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being obvious over Davis in view Porter and Salahshour. The Examiner’s
rejection is on pages 22 and 23 of the Answer.

ISSUE
Appellants argue on pages 12 and 13 of the Brief2, that the Examiner’s
rejection based upon Davis in view Porter is in error as it would render
Davis inoperable for its intended purpose and the Examiner has not provided
an adequate motivation to modify Davis with the teachings of Porter.
Appellants’ arguments present us with the issue of whether the

2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Brief dated August 8, 2008, and
the Reply Brief dated December 29, 2008.
Appeal 2009-011330
Application 10/178,804
4

Examiner erred in finding that a skilled artisan would be prompted to modify
Davis to include secure and non-secure memory regions as discussed in
Porter?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs and we concur
with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding that a skilled
artisan would be prompted to modify Davis to include secure and non-secure
memory regions as discussed in Porter. Independent claims 1, 7, 11, 18, 19,
30, 37, 38, 50, 51, and 54 recite limitations directed to both a secure and a
non-secure section of video data.
The Examiner finds Davis teaches a video card (Secure Video Content
Processor (SVCP)) with encrypted video stored in a secure memory.
Answer 4. Further, the Examiner finds that while Davis teaches non-secure
regions, these regions are not on the SVCP. Answer 4. The Examiner also
finds Porter teaches that a video card containing memory which has both
secure and non-secure regions. 3 Answer 26. We concur with these findings
by the Examiner. However, we disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion, on
pages 26 and 27 of the Answer, that the skilled artisan would modify the
Secure Video Content Processor of Davis to include a non-secure memory.
The purpose of the Secure Video Content Processor in Davis is to protect
content from being copied and prevent people hacking to obtain access to
the data, see Davis, col. 1, ll. 14-20, and

3 We note that the Examiner has not presented evidence of whether this
teaching of Porter alone or in combination with other art would teach the
Footnote continued on next page.
Appeal 2009-011330
Application 10/178,804
5

col. 2, ll. 10-13. Thus, the Examiner’s rationale to combine the references,
to prevent access to a portion while permitting access to other portions, is at
odds with the purpose of Davis’s Secure Video Content Processor.
Accordingly, we do not consider the Examiner to have established that the
skilled artisan would be prompted to modify Davis as concluded in the
rejection. Thus, we will not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 1 through 8, 10 through 19, 21, 23 through 30, 32, 36 through 43, 46,
49 through 51, and 53.
The Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 9, 20, 22, 31, 33
through 35, 44, 45, 47, 48, 52, and 55 through 59 similarly rely upon the
combined teachings of Davis and Porter to teach the limitations of the
independent claims. Accordingly, we will not sustain these rejections for the
same reasons as discussed with the rejection based upon Davis and Porter.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s decision to
reject claims 1 through 59.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 59 is
reversed.

REVERSED

limitations of storing encrypted data in the secure memory and decrypting
the data a claimed.
Appeal 2009-011330
Application 10/178,804
6

tj