Ex Parte Farrugia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2016

11366191 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/366,191 03/01/2006
62224 7590 06/27/2016
ADELILLP
11859 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 408
LOS ANGELES, CA 90025
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Augustin J. Farrugia
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.
APLE.P0105 2832
EXAMINER
HENNING, MATTHEW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2016 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):
mail@adelillp.com
PatentOffice@adelillp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AUGUSTIN J. FARRUGIA, GIANP AOLO FASOLI, and
JEAN-FRANCOIS RIENDEAU
Appeal2015-000498 1
Application 11/366,191
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Apple Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's non-final rejection of claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-21, 23, 24, 26-29,
33-35, 38--40, 43, 46, 47, 49-52, 55-58, 61---65, and 68-76, which are all the
pending claims. Appeal Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to a "digital rights management
(DRM) method for distributing content to users over a network." Abstract.
Independent claims 1 and 55 are representative and reproduced below:
1. A digital rights management (DRM) method for protecting
content using a diversified encryption scheme that uses a
plurality of different encryption functions for different users, the
method comprising:
based on a first set of diversity indicia that uniquely
identifies a first user of a first computer, generating a first index
value;
using the first index value to identify, at a centralized set
ofDRM computers, a first encryption function from the plurality
of different encryption functions for protecting a set of content
for distribution to the first computer, wherein the first set of
diversity indicia is used each time the first user of the first
computer connects to the DRM computers;
based on a second set of diversity indicia that uniquely
identifies a second user of a second computer, generating a
second index value different than the first index value;
using the second index value to identify, at the centralized
set of DRM computers, a second encryption function, different
from the first encryption function, from the plurality of different
2
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
encryption functions for protecting the set of content for
distribution to the second computer, wherein the second set of
diversity indicia is used each time the second user of the second
computer connects to the DRM computers;
at the centralized set of DRM computers, using the
identified first encryption function to protect the set of content
for distribution to the first computer; and
at the centralized set of DRM computers, using the
identified second encryption function to protect the set of content
for distribution to the second computer,
wherein the first set of diversity indicia is for identifying,
at the first computer, a first decryption function from a plurality
of different decryption functions for accessing the content while
the second set of diversity indicia is for identifying, at the second
computer, a second decryption function from the plurality of
different decryption functions for accessing the content, the first
decryption function corresponding to the first encryption
function and the second decryption function corresponding to the
second encryption function.
55. A method for accessing content that is protected by using
a security element that is based on a set of diversity indicia
associated with a recipient of content, the method comprising:
performing a first transaction to request a first piece of
content from a set of digital rights management (DRM) servers;
after performing the transaction, sending the diversity
indicia to the DRM server set, the diversity indicia for use by the
DRM server set to identify a set of security element functions for
protecting the first content, the set of security element functions
comprising at least two different security element functions
identified based on the diversity indicia;
receiving the first content, protected by the set of security
element functions, from the DRM server set;
performing a second transaction to request a second piece
of content from the set of DRM servers;
3
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
receiving the second content, protected by the set of
security element functions identified in the first transaction, from
the DRM server set, without resending the diversity indicia to the
DRM server set;
based on the set of diversity indicia, identifying a set of
access functions for accessing the protected first and second
content, the set of access functions comprising at least two
different access functions identified based on the diversity
indicia; and
accessing the content by using the identified set of access
functions.
Appeal Br. 84--85, 92-93 (Claims App.).
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 55-58, 61, 75, and 76 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Messerges (US 2002/0157002 Al;
Oct. 24, 2002), in view of Dierks et al., The TLS Protocol Version 1.0,
Network Working Group Request for Comments: 2246, January 1999
(hereinafter "TLS"). Non-Final Act. 10.
The Examiner rejects claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-21, 23, 24, 26-29, 33-35,
38--40, 43, 46, 47, 49-52, 62---65, and 68-74 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Messerges, further in view of Fawcett
(US 2005/0108262 Al; May 19, 2005), further in view of Ougi
(US 2004/0260950 Al; Dec. 23, 2004), further in view of TLS, and further
in view of Douceur (US 6,067,547; May 23, 2000). Non-Final Act. 13.
4
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
A. Claims 55-58 and 61
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the system disclosed in TLS does not ever
exchange diversity indicia, and, thus, TLS (either alone or in combination
with Messerges) would not render obvious, to an ordinary person skilled in
the art, a method that receives a first protected content after a first
transaction and a second protected content after a second transaction without
resending diversity indicia to the content server. Appeal Br. 58.
We do not find this argument persuasive. Claim 55 recites "a set of
diversity indicia associated with a recipient of content," and further recites
the diversity indicia is "for use by the DRM sever set to identify a set of
security element functions for protecting the first content." Appellants'
specification does not further define or limit the term "diversity indicia."
Further, TLS teaches that when a client and server decide to resume a
previous session, the client sends an initial message that includes a session
identifier of the session to be resumed, the server locates the previous
session and corresponding session state in its session cache based on the
session identifier, and both the client and the server apply cryptographic
options for protecting messages as defined by the previous session. TLS
§§ 7 .1, 7.4.1.2. Because TLS teaches that the session identifier is used to
identify a set of cryptographic options for protecting messages, we agree
with the Examiner that the session identifier taught by TLS teaches the
claimed "diversity indicia." Ans. 14. We also agree with the Examiner that
requesting content without resending diversity indicia would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of the teaching of TLS, and
that Appellants failed to contest the Examiner's finding as to the
5
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
aforementioned claim limitation being well known. Ans. 14-15; see Jn re
Chevenard, 139 F.2d 711, 713 (CCPA 1943) (accepting the examiner's
finding that a brief heating at a higher temperature was the equivalent of a
longer heating at a lower temperature where the applicant never demanded
that the examiner produce evidence to support his statement).
Appellants further argue that TLS does not describe using
identification information of the client, or any sort of diversity indicia, as the
basis for any of the handshake steps taught in TLS. Appeal Br. 59---60. We
also do not find this argument persuasive because, as we previously
described, we agree with the Examiner that TLS teaches the session
identifier is used to identify a set of cryptographic options for protecting
messages, and, thus, TLS's session identifier teaches the claimed "diversity
indicia." Ans. 14.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 55, and claims 56-58 and 61, not argued separately.
B. Claims 1-3, 9-13, 69, and 71-73
Appellants argue that the query described in Ougi is not the claimed
"index value" because the query does not itself identify an encryption
function, and merely contains a user identifier with no additional generation
of information. Appeal Br. 23. Appellants further argue that Douceur does
not describe any aspects of digital rights management, and merely describes
search keys generally. Appeal Br. 23-24.
We do not find these arguments persuasive. It is well established that
one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a combination of
6
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
references. See Jn re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); Jn
re Keller 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Further, the test for obviousness
is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. Rather, the test is
what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; see also In re
Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1973) ("Combining the teachings of
references does not involve an ability to combine their specific structures.").
As discussed below in greater detail, we conclude that Appellants'
arguments regarding independent claim 1, and other arguments regarding
independent claims 15, 24, 43, and 62, are generally not persuasive because
they attack individual cited references for lacking features that the Examiner
finds are taught by the combination of cited references. Further, as also
discussed below in greater detail, we conclude that Appellants' argument
regarding Ougi is not persuasive because it is not necessary that cited
references be physically combinable to render a claimed invention obvious.
We agree with the Examiner that Messerges teaches a domain-based
DRM system including a server and a client, where the server encrypts
content based on a domain, where the client must be associated with the
domain to receive the content, and where transport layer security (TLS) is
used to secure the communication between the client and the server. Ans. 2
(citing Messerges i-fi-140-58). We further agree that Fawcett teaches a server
that stores user configuration information, including security information.
Id. (citing Fawcett i1 51 ). We also agree that Ougi teaches a key
management workstation that allocates unique user identifiers to users and
queries a database containing user preferences regarding encryption
7
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
algorithms based on the user identifiers. Id. (citing Ougi iii! 21, 108); see
Ougi if 193. We further agree that TLS teaches a secure communication
protocol that includes various sets of security functions (i.e., encryption
functions, integrity functions, key management functions, and key
generation functions) and access functions (i.e., decryption functions,
verification functions, key management functions, and key generation
functions). Ans. 2-3 (citing TLS §§ 7.3-7.4, Appendix C). We also agree
that Douceur teaches generating an address from a query identifier and
querying a hash table to identify a record in a database based on the address.
Ans. 3 (citing Douceur, 1:35--45). Thus, in the Examiner's proffered
combination, the system of Messerges utilizes TLS, in which a user's
preferred set of security functions and access functions are stored in a
database, where the system queries the database using a unique identifier for
the user, where the unique user identifier is hashed to generate an address,
and where the hashed address is used to select the database record
containing the preferred set of security functions and access functions. Id.
The Examiner's analysis is consistent with the framework articulated by the
Supreme Court-when considering obviousness, "the analysis need not seek
out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellants' argument regarding Ougi and Douceur are not persuasive
because the argument fails to address the combination of cited references,
which we agree teaches generating first and second index values (i.e.,
Douceur's hashed addresses) based on first and second sets of diversity
8
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
indicia that uniquely identify first and second users of first and second
computers (i.e., Ougi's unique user identifiers), and further teaches using the
generated first and second index values to identify first and second
encryption functions (i.e., TLS's encryption functions) for protecting content
for distribution to the first and second computers (i.e., Messerges' server that
encrypts content for distribution to clients).2 Ans. 4--5; Non-Final Act. 13-
16.
Appellants further argue that Ougi merely teaches identifying and
selecting encryption algorithms at a key management station, and fails to
teach selecting an encryption algorithm or a decryption algorithm at a
transmission side device or a reception side device because the key
management station of Ougi is designed in a way that precludes lookups at
both the transmission side and the reception side, and further fails to teach
using diversity indicia to identify a decryption function at the reception side
device. Appeal Br. 25-26. Appellants also argue that TLS fails to teach
using any identification information of a client as a basis for selecting
encryption algorithms at a server, or selecting decryption algorithms at the
client. Appeal Br. 26-27.
We do not find these arguments persuasive. Appellants' argument
that Ougi fails to teach selecting an encryption algorithm or a decryption
algorithm at a transmission side device or a reception side device, or using
2 Claim 1 recites "a first set of diversity indicia that uniquely identifies a first
user of a first computer," and "a second set of diversity indicia that uniquely
identifies a second user of a second computer." As previously described,
Appellants' specification does not further define or limit the term "diversity
indicia." Because Ougi teaches that the user identifier is used to uniquely
identify a user of a client device, we agree with the Examiner that the user
identifier taught by Ougi teaches the claimed "diversity indicia." Ans. 4.
9
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
diversity indicia to identify a decryption function at the reception side device
is not persuasive because the argument attacks Ougi: (a) individually rather
than the combination of cited references; and (b) for not being physically
combinable with Messerges. Regarding (a), the Examiner relied upon TLS,
rather than Ougi, for teaching identifying an encryption function or
decryption function at a transmission side device or reception side device.
Ans. 6; Non-Final Act. 13-16. Regarding (b ), the Examiner's combination
does not require a bodily incorporation of Ougi' s encryption algorithm
management method into Messerges' domain-based DRM system. Ans. 5-
6; Non-Final Act. 13-16. Instead, the Examiner's combination simply
requires the use of unique identifiers to query a database for a user's
encryption function preferences, as taught by Ougi, and Appellants'
argument does not rebut the Examiner's finding that Ougi teaches using
unique identifiers to query a user's encryption function preferences in a
database. Ans. 6. Further, Appellants' argument that TLS fails to teach
using diversity indicia that uniquely identifies a user of a computer is not
persuasive because the argument attacks TLS individually, rather than the
combined teachings of Messerges, Fawcett, Ougi, TLS, and Douceur, as the
Examiner relied upon Ougi, rather than TLS, for teaching diversity indicia
that uniquely identifies a user of a computer. Ans. 6-7; Non-Final Act. 13-
16.
Appellants also argue that Fawcett fails to teach generating different
index values from different sets of diversity indicia, or using the index
values generated from the sets of diversity indicia to select different
encryption functions. Appeal Br. 28. We do not find this argument
persuasive. Appellants' argument regarding Fawcett is not persuasive
10
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
because the argument attacks Fawcett individually, rather than the
combination of cited references, as the Examiner relied upon Douceur for
teaching index values, Ougi for teaching different sets of diversity indicia,
and TLS for selecting different encryption functions. Ans. 8; Non-Final Act.
13-16.
Appellants further argue the Non-Final Office Action fails to provide
a sufficient reason why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the elements of Messerges, Fawcett, Ougi, TLS, and
Douceur. Appeal Br. 28. More specifically, Appellants argue that: (a)
Fawcett fails to teach aspects of digital rights management, thus, one of
ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to combine Fawcett with the
other cited references; (b) Ougi' s encryption algorithm sharing management
method cannot be plausibly combined with TLS' s protocol; and, ( c) Douceur
does not relate to digital rights management. Appeal Br. 28-31.
We do not find these arguments persuasive. Regarding (a) and (c),
Appellants effectively argue that Fawcett and Douceur are not analogous art.
A prior art reference is analogous to a claimed invention if it is either from
the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem
with which the inventor is involved. In re Bigio, 381F.3d1320, 1325 (Fed.
Cir. 2004). We agree with the Examiner that Fawcett is in the same field of
endeavor as Appellants' claimed invention (i.e., information security), and
therefore is analogous art. Ans. 9. We further agree that Douceur describes
an improved method for querying a database, which is reasonably pertinent
to the same problem Appellants address: protecting digital content
differently for different users based on different sets of indicia received from
11
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
users and stored within a persistent storage, such as a database. Id. Thus,
we conclude that Douceur is also analogous art.
Regarding (b ), Appellants effectively argue that Ougi cannot be
bodily incorporated with TLS. However, the rejection is not based upon a
bodily incorporation of Ougi' s encryption algorithm management method
into TLS's protocol. Instead, as previously discussed, the Examiner's
combination simply requires Ougi' s teaching of using unique identifiers to
query a database for a user's encryption function preferences, and
Appellants' argument does not rebut the Examiner's finding regarding Ougi.
Ans. 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 9-13, 69, and 71-73, not argued separately.
C. Claims 15-21
Appellants argue that Fawcett fails to teach a selection of both
integrity and encryption functions, and also fails to teach using diversity
indicia to select a set of security functions for protecting content. Appeal
Br. 33-34. Appellants further argue that Ougi fails to teach integrity
functions, and also fails to teach using diversity indicia to select an integrity
function. Appeal Br. 34--35. Appellants also argue that TLS fails to teach
selecting encryption functions and integrity functions from a set of security
functions. Appeal Br. 35.
We do not find these arguments persuasive. Appellants' argument
regarding Fawcett and Ougi is not persuasive because the argument attacks
the references individually, rather than the combination of cited references,
as the Examiner relied upon Ougi, rather than Fawcett, for teaching diversity
12
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
indicia, and TLS, rather than Ougi, for teaching integrity and encryption
functions. Ans. 10-11; Non-Final Act.13-16. Further, we disagree with
Appellants' argument that TLS fails to teach selecting encryption functions
and integrity functions. We agree with the Examiner that TLS teaches
selecting a cipher suite from a set of cipher suites, where a cipher suite
includes a set of security functions, including encryption functions and
integrity functions. Ans. 10.
Appellants further argue the Non-Final Office Action fails to provide
a sufficient reason why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to combine the elements of Messerges, Fawcett, Ougi, TLS, and
Douceur. Appeal Br. 35-38. We do not find this argument persuasive for
the reasons previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 15, and claims 16-21, not argued separately.
D. Claims 24, 26-29, 33, 39, and 40
Appellants argue that Ougi fails to teach a lookup of integrity
functions, or using diversity indicia to select an integrity function from a
plurality of different integrity functions. Appeal Br. 40-41. Appellants
further argue TLS fails to teach a basis for selecting encryption and integrity
functions for protecting content. Appeal Br. 41. We do not find these
arguments persuasive for reasons similar to the reasons previously discussed
with respect to independent claim 1, i.e., Appellants' arguments attack the
references individually, rather than the combination of cited references on
which the Examiner relied.
13
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
Appellants further argue that Ougi merely teaches identifying and
selecting encryption algorithms at a key management station, and fails to
teach selecting an encryption algorithm or a decryption algorithm at a
transmission side device or a reception side device, and further fails to teach
using diversity indicia to identify a decryption function at the reception side
device. Appeal Br. 42--43. Appellants also argue that TLS fails to teach
using any identification information of a client as a basis for selecting
encryption algorithms at a server, or selecting decryption algorithms at the
client. Appeal Br. 43--44. We do not find these arguments persuasive for
reasons similar to the reasons previously discussed with respect to
independent claim I-Appellants' arguments again attack the references
individually, rather than the Examiner's asserted combination of references.
Appellants also argue the Non-Final Office Action fails to provide a
sufficient reason why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the elements of Messerges, Fawcett, Ougi, TLS, and
Douceur. Appeal Br. 44--4 7. We do not find this argument persuasive for
the reasons previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 24, and claims 26-29, 33, 39, and 40, not argued separately.
E. Claims 43, 46, 47, 49, and 50
Appellants argue that Ougi merely teaches identifying and selecting
encryption algorithms at a key management station, and fails to teach
selecting a set of security functions based on an identified set of diversity
indicia at a transmission side device or using the identified set of diversity
indicia to identify a set of access functions at a reception side device, and
14
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
further fails to teach using diversity indicia to identify access functions by
the recipient of content. Appeal Br. 50---51. Appellants also argue that TLS
fails to teach using any identification information of a client as a basis for
selecting encryption algorithms at a server, or selecting decryption
algorithms at the client. Appeal Br. 51. We do not find these arguments
persuasive because they attack the references individually, rather than the
Examiner's asserted combination of references.
Appellants further argue that Ougi fails to teach integrity functions,
key management functions, key generation functions, or any analogous
access functions, and also fails to teach using diversity indicia to select a set
of security element functions. Appeal Br. 52. Appellants also argue that
TLS fails to teach using any basis for selecting security functions for
protecting content. Appeal Br. 53. We also do not find these arguments
persuasive because again, Appellants' arguments attack the references
individually, rather than the combination of cited references.
Appellants also argue the Non-Final Office Action fails to provide a
sufficient reason why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the elements of Messerges, Fawcett, Ougi, TLS, and
Douceur. Appeal Br. 53-56. We do not find this argument persuasive for
the reasons previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 43, and claims 46, 47, 49, and 50, not argued separately.
F. Claims 62---65 and 68
Appellants argue that Ougi merely teaches identifying and selecting
encryption algorithms at a key management station, and fails to teach
15
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
selecting a set of security functions based on an identified set of diversity
indicia at a transmission side device or using the identified set of diversity
indicia to identify a set of access functions at a reception side device, and
further fails to teach using diversity indicia to identify access functions by
the recipient of content. Appeal Br. 62---63. Appellants also argue that TLS
fails to teach using any identification information of a client as a basis for
selecting encryption algorithms at a server, or selecting decryption
algorithms at the client. Appeal Br. 63-64. We also do not find these
arguments persuasive because they attack the references individually, rather
than the combination of cited references.
Appellants further argue that Ougi fails to teach integrity functions,
key management functions, key generation functions, or any analogous
access functions, and also fails to teach using diversity indicia to select a set
of security element functions. Appeal Br. 65. Appellants also argue that
TLS fails to teach using any basis for selecting security functions for
protecting content. Appeal Br. 65---66. We also do not find these arguments
persuasive because they attack the references individually, rather than the
combination of cited references.
Appellants also argue the Non-Final Office Action fails to provide a
sufficient reason why it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art to combine the elements of Messerges, Fawcett, Ougi, TLS, and
Douceur. Appeal Br. 66---69. We do not find this argument persuasive for
the reasons previously discussed with respect to claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 62, and claims 63---65 and 68, not argued separately.
16
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
G. Claims 7 5 and 7 6
Claim 75 depends upon claim 55, and further recites
wherein the set of security element functions identified by the
DRM server is a particular set of a plurality of different sets of
security element functions, wherein a particular security element
function in the particular set is mathematically related to a
security element function in a different set of security element
functions by having a same functional expression with different
parametric values.
Appellants argue that TLS' s parameters are merely cipher suite parameters
that indicate cryptographic algorithms supported by the client, and that the
parameters are not mathematically related, and do not have the same
functional expression with different values. Appeal Br. 80-81. We do not
find this argument persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that the
cryptographic functions described in TLS (i.e., DES40_CBC, DES_CBC,
3DES_EDE_CBC) are mathematically related functions because the
functions are all data encryption standard (DES) functions, and we further
agree that the cryptographic functions take different parameters as input
(e.g., DES40_CBC takes a 40 bit input parameter, while DES_CBC takes a
64-bit input parameter). Ans. 18-19.
Claim 76 depends upon claim 75, and further recites, "wherein the
particular security element function and the mathematically related security
element function are both different encryption functions." Appellants argue
that TLS 's parameters are cipher suite parameters that are not
mathematically related. Appeal Br. 81-82. We do not find this argument
persuasive. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that TLS teaches different
encryption functions (e.g., DES40_CBC is a different encryption function
from DES_CBC). Ans. 19.
17
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 75 and 76.
H. Claims 4, 5, and 70
Claim 4 depends upon claim 1, and further recites, "wherein the
centralized set of DRM computers assigns at least partially the set of
diversity indicia associated with each of the first and second recipients."
Appellants argue that assignment of diversity indicia would not have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, even in light of the cited
references, because the key management station described in Ougi is simply
an information repository, and Ougi fails to teach or suggest how or when
user identifiers would be assigned by the key management station. Appeal
Br. 70. We do not find this argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that having the key management station assign an identifier to a
client would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art in light of
the teaching of Ougi, and Appellants did not traverse the Examiner's finding
that the aforementioned claim limitation was well known. Ans. 17; see
Chevenard, 139 F.2d 713. Further, we find that Ougi does, in fact, teach
that the key management station allocates a user identifier to a user. Ougi
ii 193.
Claim 5 depends upon claim 1, and further recites, "wherein the first
set of diversity indicia is user information regarding the first user and the
second set of diversity indicia is computer information regarding the second
computer." Appellants argue that Fawcett merely describes user preferences
that a user can select, not information regarding a first user of a first
computer and information regarding a second computer. Appeal Br. 71.
Appellants further argue that Ougi merely describes user identification
18
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
numbers and possible different encryption algorithms. Id. We do not find
these arguments persuasive. Fawcett teaches storing user configuration
information, including functional aspects of the application that may be
customized from user to user, which teaches the claimed "user information
regarding the first user." Ans. 17; see Fawcett i-f 51. Fawcett further teaches
storing application configuration information, such as server names, and
other aspects of an application that may be customized, which corresponds
to the claimed "computer information regarding the second computer."
Ans. 17; see Fawcett i-f 51. Further, as discussed above, we agree with the
Examiner that Ougi teaches "diversity indicia." Ans. 4.
Claim 70 depends upon claim 1, and further recites "wherein the first
set of diversity indicia is computer information about the first computer."
Appellants argue Messerges merely describes a domain-based digital rights
management system, and Messerges never describes how security functions
are selected for transmission between a server and user devices, and thus,
Messerges does not teach a selection process that relies on diversity indicia
associated with a computer. Appeal Br. 79. We do not find this argument
persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Messerges teaches the
recipient of content is a computer. Ans. 18. Further, as discussed above, we
agree that Ougi teaches "diversity indicia." Ans. 4.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 5, and
70.
I. Claim 23
Claim 23 depends upon claim 15, and further recites, "wherein the set
of diversity indicia for each user device is partially assigned by the set of
19
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
DRM computers." Appellants' argument regarding claim 23 is similar to its
argument regarding claim 4. See Appeal Br. 72-73. We do not find this
argument persuasive for the reasons previously discussed with respect to
claim 4. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 23.
J. Claims 34, 35, 38, and 74
Claim 34 depends upon claim 24, and further recites, "wherein the
recipient of the content is a device and the set of diversity indicia is
associated with the device." Appellants' argument regarding claim 34 is
similar to its argument regarding claim 70---the only significant difference is
that the term "device," rather than "computer," is recited in the claim. See
Appeal Br. 73-74. We do not find this argument persuasive for the reasons
previously discussed with respect to claim 70, as a computer is a device.
Claim 35 depends upon claim 24 and further recites, "wherein the
recipient of the content is a computer and the set of diversity indicia is
associated with the computer." Appellants' argument regarding claim 35 is
similar to its argument for claim 70. See Appeal Br. 74--75. We do not find
this argument persuasive for the reasons previously discussed with respect to
claim 70.
Claim 38 depends upon claim 24, and further recites, "wherein
selecting the particular integrity function comprises generating an index
based on the set of diversity indicia, the index identifying the particular
integrity function." Appellants' argument regarding claim 38 is similar to its
argument regarding claim 1 with respect to "first index value" and "second
index value," as recited in claim 1. See Appeal Br. 75-76. We do not find
this argument persuasive for the reasons previously discussed with respect to
20
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
claim 1, as we agree with the Examiner that Douceur teaches "generating an
index based on the set of diversity indicia," as recited in claim 38. Ans. 18.
Claim 7 4 depends upon claim 34 and further recites, "wherein the
integrity function and encryption function are part of a set of security
element functions selected from a plurality of sets of security element
functions based on the diversity indicia." Appellants' argument regarding
claim 7 4 is similar to its argument for independent claim 62 with respect to
"the diversity indicia for use by the DRM servers to identify a set of security
functions for protecting the content," as recited in claim 62. See Appeal
Br. 80. We do not find this argument persuasive for the reasons previously
discussed with respect to independent claim 62, as we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of cited references teaches "wherein the
integrity function and encryption function are part of a set of security
element functions selected from a plurality of sets of security element
functions based on the diversity indicia," as recited in claim 74.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 34, 35, 38,
and 74.
K. Claims 51 and 52
Claim 51 depends upon claim 43, and further recites, "wherein the
recipient of the content is a device and the set of diversity indicia is
associated with the device." Appellants' argument regarding claim 51 is
similar to its argument regarding claim 34. See Appeal Br. 76-77. We do
not find this argument persuasive for the reasons previously discussed with
respect to claim 34.
21
Appeal2015-000498
Application 11/366,191
Claim 52 depends upon claim 43, and further recites, "wherein the set
of instructions for selecting the set of security functions comprises a set of
instructions for generating an index based on the set of diversity indicia, the
index identifying the particular set of security functions." Appellants'
argument regarding claim 52 is similar to its argument regarding claim 1
with respect to "first index value" and "second index value," as recited in
claim 1. See Appeal Br. 78. We do not find this argument persuasive for the
reasons previously discussed with respect to claim 1, as we agree with the
Examiner that Douceur teaches "generating an index based on the set of
diversity indicia," as recited in claim 52. Ans. 18.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 51 and 52.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-5, 9-13, 15-21, 23,
24, 26-29, 33-35, 38--40, 43, 46, 47, 49-52, 55-58, 61---65, and 68-76 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
22