Ex Parte Hars

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 26, 2011

10540185 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 26, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte LASZLO HARS
____________

Appeal 2009-011679
Application 10/540,185
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHN A. JEFFERY, and JAMES R. HUGHES,
Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
affirm-in-part.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention securely distributes electronic content based on
its highest quality version. See generally Spec. 1-2. Claim 1 is illustrative
with key disputed limitations emphasized:
Appeal 2009-011679
Application 10/540,185

2
1. A method of distributing various quality versions of an electronic
content, comprising:
defining each quality version of the electronic content;
defining at least one distortion algorithm executable to generate a
lower quality version of the electronic content by a distortion of a high
quality version of the electronic content;
assigning at least one content key to at least one quality version of the
electronic content; and
distributing the higher quality version, the at least one distortion
algorithm, and the at least one content key.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Yu US 7,167,560 B2 Jan. 23, 2007
(filed Aug. 8, 2002)

THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-19
1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Yu. Ans. 3-10.
2

CONTENTIONS
Regarding representative claim 1, the Examiner finds that Yu
distributes various quality versions of electronic content by defining a
―distortion algorithm‖ (i.e., Yu’s encryption algorithm) that generates a
lower-quality version of the content by distorting a higher-quality version.
Ans. 3-4, 10-12. Yu is said to distribute (1) the distortion algorithm; (2)
higher-quality version; and (3) at least one content key as claimed. Id.

1
Although the Examiner erroneously includes cancelled claim 20 in this
rejection (Ans. 3), we omit it here for clarity. See Br. 2 (indicating claim 20
is cancelled). Accord Ans. 2 (confirming this status as correct).
2
Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 1,
2008 and the Examiner’s Answer mailed March 3, 2009.
Appeal 2009-011679
Application 10/540,185

3
Appellant argues that Yu does not disclose the recited distortion
algorithm, let alone distribute it and the higher-quality version as claimed.
Br. 5-6. Appellant adds that Yu does not disclose various features recited in
claims 4, 7, and 9 indicated in the issue statement below. The issues before
us, then, are as follows:

ISSUES
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred by finding that Yu discloses:
(1)(a) defining a distortion algorithm that generates a lower-quality
version of electronic content by distorting a higher-quality version, and (b)
distributing this algorithm and the higher-quality version as recited in claim
1?
(2) storing the distortion algorithm on an electronic content player as
recited in claim 4?
(3) a electronic content medium comprising a high-quality version and
a distortion algorithm as recited in claim 7?
(4) an electronic content player comprising decryption and distortion
units as recited in claim 9?

FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
1. Yu partially encrypts streaming media to render it substantially
imperceptible or unsuitable to a recipient in view of its low quality.
Specifically, a bit-stream formatting engine 100 provides an encoded
bitstream (e.g., MP3 audio) to partial encryptor unit 111 including encryptor
Appeal 2009-011679
Application 10/540,185

4
113 that encrypts segment(s) of the bitstream via known algorithms to
partially encrypt the bitstream. Yu, Abstract; col. 4, l. 27 – col. 5, l. 37; Fig.
1.
2. The partially-encrypted bitstream can be sent to (1) the recipient
(e.g., via the Internet), or (2) scalable encoder 114 that can encode the
bitstream into layers (e.g., a core layer and enhancement layer(s)) before
sending to the recipient. Yu, col. 5, l. 31 – col. 6, l. 6; col. 6, l. 38 – col. 7, l.
8; Figs. 1-2, 4.
3. When media is layered, the different layers can be encrypted
separately. Different keys are also provided such that those with the base
layer decryption key may view the media in lower quality, but those with
both the base and enhancement layer keys may view the media in higher
quality. For example, a distributor or broadcaster may provide a free lower-
quality version of an image by not encrypting the core layer, but recipients
wishing to view/listen to a higher-quality version of the media can be given
with a key (for a fee) to decrypt one or more enhancement layers. Yu, col.
6, l. 54 – col. 7, l. 44.
4. Appellant’s DVD player 70 includes a decryption unit 72 and
distortion unit 73 that executes a distortion algorithm to generate a lower-
quality version of electronic content corresponding to a content key. Spec.
5:5-20; Fig. 6.
5. Appellant indicates that ―recorders, personal computers, etc.‖ are
exemplary content players. Spec. 1:18-19.

Appeal 2009-011679
Application 10/540,185

5
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, and 6
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection of representative claim 1. First, we see no reason why
Yu’s encryption algorithm cannot be a ―distortion algorithm‖ as the
Examiner indicates (Ans. 10), for Yu’s partial encryption scheme uses
algorithms to ―distort‖ a media bitstream to render it imperceptible or
otherwise unsuitable to a recipient in view of its low quality. FF 1-2. And
nothing in the claim precludes Yu’s distributing these ―distortion
algorithms‖ to at least the encryptors associated with the bit-stream
formatting engine shown in Figure 1. See id. Nor does the claim preclude
the distribution of the higher-quality (i.e., unencrypted) content to the
encryptors for encryption. See FF 2-3.
Yu also distributes higher-quality versions of electronic content
associated with ―enhancement layers‖ to the recipient for recovery via the
appropriate decryption key. Id. Not only do these versions have higher
quality than the core layer version, but the very encryption of the
enhancement layer version itself creates a lower-quality version relative to
the associated higher-quality version recovered via decryption. See FF 3.
To be sure, Yu ultimately distributes the ―distortion algorithm‖ and
higher-quality version of electronic content to different destinations, namely
the system’s encryptors and recipient, respectively. See FF 1-3. But the
scope and breadth of the recited distribution does not preclude this diverse
distribution, for claim 1 does not require that the distortion algorithm,
higher-quality version, and content key be distributed together or to the same
destination.
Appeal 2009-011679
Application 10/540,185

6
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 5, and 6 not separately argued with
particularity.

Claims 4 and 9-19
We will not, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Although distributed electronic content is stored on a player in Yu so the
recipient can view or listen to that content as the Examiner indicates (Ans.
12; FF 3), that hardly means that the distortion algorithm would also be
stored on the player—a key aspect of the claimed invention that integrates
both the decryption and distortion units on a single player. See FF 4.
Rather, as noted above, Yu’s ―distortion algorithm‖ (i.e., encryption
algorithm) is stored on the encryptors associated with the bit-stream
formatting engine. FF 1-2. We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 4.
We reach a similar conclusion regarding independent claim 9 since
Yu’s player does not comprise the recited distortion unit. Nor can we say
that Yu’s bit-stream formatting engine is necessarily an electronic content
player. That this engine encodes, encrypts, and delivers media content to
recipients’ players does not mean that the engine necessarily plays that
content, despite Appellant’s somewhat broad and open-ended description of
content players in the Specification. See FF 1-2, 5. Nor will we speculate in
this regard here in the first instance on appeal.
We are therefore persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting (1)
claim 4; (2) independent claim 9; and (3) dependent claims 10-19 for similar
reasons.
Appeal 2009-011679
Application 10/540,185

7
Claims 7 and 8
We will, however, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7.
Despite Appellant’s arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 7), nothing in the
claim precludes storing Yu’s storing the ―distortion algorithm‖ (encryption
algorithm) and higher-quality versions of electronic content on the
encryptor’s storage medium. See FF 1-2.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
representative claim 7, and claim 8 not separately argued with particularity.

CONCLUSION
Under § 102, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3 and 5-8,
but erred in rejecting claims 4 and 9-19.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-19 is affirmed-in-part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

pgc