Ex Parte Foster et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201412034421 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ERIC M. FOSTER, JEFFREY B. LOTSPIECH, FLORIAN PESTONI, WILFRED E. PLOUFFE JR., and FRANK A. SCHAFFA1 ________________ Appeal 2011-011486 Application 12/034,421 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, and JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 International Business Machines Corp. is the Real Party in Interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2011-011486 Application 12/034,421 2 Invention Appellant invented a “method and system for attaching a title key to encrypted content for synchronized transmission to, or storage by, a recipient . . . .” Abstract. Specifically, “an elementary media stream is parceled into content units that each include a content packet and a header,” where the content packet is encrypted with one or more title keys (which are themselves encrypted using a key encrypting key). Id. “The encrypted title keys are then attached to the corresponding encrypted content packets for synchronized transmission to a recipient.” Id. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, is representative: 1. A method for attaching a title key to encrypted content for synchronized transmission to a recipient, comprising the steps of: encrypting content with a title key; encrypting the title key with a key encrypting key; attaching the encrypted title key to the encrypted content for synchronized transmission to a recipient, the synchronized transmission including a plurality of segments of the content having different title keys transmitted therewith and being decrypted by the recipient using the title keys as the content is being received; and delivering a key management block that contains multiple encryptions of the key encrypting key that enable the recipient to recover the key encrypting key. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1–5, 7, 8, 11–13, and 16–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Narasimhalu (US 5,499,298), Appeal 2011-011486 Application 12/034,421 3 Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (“AAPA”), Wasilewski (US 5,420,866), and Lotspiech (US 6,118,873). Ans. 4–12. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 9, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Narasimhalu, AAPA, Wasilewski, Lotspiech, and Bruce Schneider, Applied Cryptography: Protocols, Algorithms, and Source Code in C, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (1996) (“Schneider”). Ans. 12–14. The Examiner rejects claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Narasimhalu, AAPA, Wasilewski, Lotspiech, Schneider, and Wool (US 6,073,122). Ans. 14–15. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Narasimhalu, AAPA, Wasilewski, Lotspiech, Schneider, and Rump (US 7,434,052). Ans. 15–16. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Narasimhalu and AAPA teaches or suggests “attaching the encrypted title key to the encrypted content for synchronized transmission to a recipient, the synchronized transmission including a plurality of segments of the content having different title keys transmitted therewith and being decrypted by the recipient using the title keys as the content is being received,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Narasimhalu’s disclosure of a Sealed-COIN (sealed controlled information) teaches or suggests attaching an encrypted title key to encrypted content for synchronized transmission to a recipient. Ans. 4 (citing Narasimhalu Figs. 8 and 10 and col. 10, ll. 63–65). The Examiner acknowledges Narasimhalu “does not explicitly disclose the Appeal 2011-011486 Application 12/034,421 4 synchronized transmission including a plurality of segments of the content having different title keys . . . .” Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner relies on AAPA’s disclosure of securing a content stream by encrypting packets (i.e., segments) of the stream with different keys to cure the acknowledged deficiency. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 0003 and 0005). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “the synchronized transmission of the claimed invention is not a single chunk which can only be accessed after verification is received from the provider, as in [Narasimhalu], but rather, includes a plurality of segments of the content having different embedded title keys.” App. Br. 7. However, the Examiner correctly relies on AAPA, not Narasimhalu, to teach or suggest a transmission that includes a plurality of segments having different keys. Ans. 5 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 0003 and 0005). Appellants also argue “the statement in the background of Appellant[s’] original specification that the Examiner relies on fails to teach or suggest keys transmitted as part of the content in a synchronous transmission of its multi-packet content.” Reply Br. 2. However, the Examiner correctly relies on Narasimhalu to teach or suggest embedding a key along with encrypted content (e.g., a segment of a transmission). Ans. 4 (citing Narasimhalu Figs. 8 and 10 and col. 10, ll. 63–65). Appellants’ argument unpersuasively attacks Narasimhalu individually rather than addressing the combined teachings and suggestions of Narasimhalu and AAPA. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner the combined teachings and suggestions of Narasimhalu and AAPA teach or suggest “attaching the encrypted title key to the encrypted content for synchronized transmission to a recipient, the synchronized transmission Appeal 2011-011486 Application 12/034,421 5 including a plurality of segments of the content having different title keys transmitted therewith and being decrypted by the recipient using the title keys as the content is being received,” as recited in claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2–18, which Appellants do not argue separately with sufficient specificity. App. Br. 8–9. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation