13693067 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

Ex Parte GOPALAKRISHNA RAO et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 27, 2017

13693067 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 13/693,067 12/04/2012 BHAVANI GOPALAKRISHNA RAO 1864.080US1 6688 40317 7590 03/01/2017 GLOBAL IP SERVICES, PLLC 121 MOORE ST PRINCETON, NJ 08540 EXAMINER HOLMES, ANGELA R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2497 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2017 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): pnama@globalipservices.com docketing@globalipservices.com pradeep @ globalipservices. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BHAVANI GOPALAKRISHNA RAO and ABHINANDAN KEDLAYA Appeal 2016-003760 Application 13/693,067 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—12, and 14—23, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. Claims 2 and 13 have been canceled. See App. Br. 10, 12 (Claims App’x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Ittiam Systems (P) Ltd. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-003760 Application 13/693,067 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants ’ Invention Appellants’ invention generally relates to authenticating an encoded multimedia stream using digital signatures. Spec. 11. The digital signatures may be generated in real-time using properties of the encoded multimedia stream. Spec. 115. The multimedia stream properties may include statistics or values derived from bit rates, video buffer verifier (VBV) buffer fullness, quantization levels, and transform coefficients or a checksum of decodable unit(s) generated by operations, such as cyclic redundancy check (CRC). Id. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A method, comprising: generating, in real-time, one or more digital signatures associated with one or more decodable units in an encoded multimedia stream using properties of the encoded multimedia stream; and embedding the generated one or more digital signatures into the encoded multimedia stream. Rejection Claims 1, 3—12, and 14—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Barton (US 5,912,972; issued June 15, 1999) and Keidar et al. (US 8,483,388 B2; issued July 9, 2013) (“Keidar”). Final Act. 3—11. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Barton and Keidar teaches or suggests “generating, in real-time, one or more digital 2 Appeal 2016-003760 Application 13/693,067 signatures associated with one or more decodable units in an encoded multimedia stream using properties of the encoded multimedia stream,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. Final Act. 3—11; Ans. 3—6. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants direct their arguments to independent claim 1, which is representative of the claims on appeal. Appellants set forth no separate arguments with respect to claims 3—12 and 14—23, which stand or fall with claim 1. See Br. 8. Appellants contend the combination of Barton and Keidar fails to teach or suggest the “generating” claim limitation because Keidar, upon which the Examiner relies, teaches that properties of the encoded multimedia stream are used to decide embedding criteria and not for generating one or more digital signatures, as required by claim 1. Br. 6—7 (citing Keidar 13:36-47). Appellants contend Keidar, instead, teaches using the Data Encryption Standard (DES) crypto-engine with a secret 64-bit key to generate the digital signatures. Br. 7 (citing Keidar, Fig. 2; 13:37-45). We do not find Appellants’ contentions persuasive. We agree with Appellants that Keidar teaches using properties of the encoded multimedia 3 Appeal 2016-003760 Application 13/693,067 stream to determine embedding criteria for embedding the digital signature. Keidar 13:38-47. However, as found by the Examiner (Ans. 5), Keidar teaches “[f]or each video frame i, embedded signature Si is based on the compressed bit-stream of the immediately preceding video frame i-1” (Keidar 13:25—27). Keidar further teaches that the compressed bit-stream may include DCT coefficients (e.g., a parameter of the encoded multimedia digital stream). Keidar 4:17—39. Appellants have not persuasively shown that Keidar’s teaching of the digital signature generated being dependent upon the compressed bit-stream of the immediately preceding video frame, including the DCT coefficient included therein, does not teach, or at least suggest, the disputed limitation. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and claims 3—12 and 14—23, which fall therewith. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—12, and 14—23 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 4