Ex Parte Hofrichter et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2015

11490421 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2015)

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.
11/490,421 07/19/2006 Klaus Hofrichter 80398.P456C 2360
8791 7590 02/23/2015
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KLAUS HOFRICHTER and ADAM BROWNSTEIN
____________________

Appeal 2012-010300
Application 11/490,421
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.

McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
78–92. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-010300
Application 11/490,421

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates “to a system and method for storing and
processing data for display on a display device.” (Spec. ¶ 1.) Claim 78
illustrates the claimed subject matter:
78. A system comprising:
a storage system coupled to a computer system through a
first connection that is a universal serial bus connection, the
first connection comprising a content connection and a control
connection, and to a television through a second connection, the
computer system comprising a digital display device, wherein
the storage system receives encoded data from the computer
system through the content connection, stores the encoded data,
converts the encoded data into a plurality of signals, transmits
the plurality of signals to the television through the second
connection, and prevents retrieval of the encoded data stored on
the storage system by the computer, and wherein operation of
the storage system is controlled by input signals received
through the control connection from a user of the television.

REJECTION
Claims 78–92 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Lewis (US 2005/0144641 A1; June 30, 2005), Naiff (US 5,982,363;
Nov. 9, 1999), and Boyle (US 7,206,497 B1; Apr. 17, 2007).

ISSUE
Does the Examiner’s combination of Lewis, Naiff, and Boyle teach or
suggest “prevent[ing] retrieval of the encoded data stored on the storage
system by the computer” as recited in claim 78?
Appeal 2012-010300
Application 11/490,421

3
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner’s combination of Naiff, Lewis, and
Boyle does not teach or suggest the limitation at issue. In particular,
Appellants assert (1) Naiff “does not contemplate a computer accessing
stored content from another device”; (2) Lewis “disclose[s] some type of
access to the stored content”; and (3) Boyle “discloses allowing retrieval of
data from [a] digital video recorder.”
1

We disagree. Appellants essentially contend the term “prevent”
requires precluding any access to the recited encoded data by the claimed
computer. But the plain and ordinary meaning of “prevent” encompasses
“[t]o preclude, stop, or hinder,”
2
and Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument that compels us to construe “prevent” more
narrowly. As found by the Examiner, Lewis teaches copyright protection
mechanisms that, among other things, restrict a system’s access to encrypted
data outside a rental period.
3
This teaching at the very least suggests
hindering a system’s access to encrypted data. The Examiner found Lewis’s
teachings, along with the teachings of Naiff and Boyle, suggest the

1
(App. Br. 8–9.)
2
Prevent Definition, OED Online, Oxford University Press.,
http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/151073?rskey=TGoVOk&result=2&isAdva
nced=false (last visited February 02, 2015) (emphasis added). See also
Prevent Definition, Merriam-Webster.com, http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/prevent (last visited February 02, 2015) (“to hold or
keep back : hinder, stop —often used with from”).
3
(See, e.g., Lewis ¶ 35 (“[T]he data is received and stored on the built-in
storage device . . . . The data may be received in a scrambled or encrypted
format, and may have either content or access restrictions . . . . For
example, in a rental or purchase transaction . . . the local VPR/DMS . . .
retain[s] rental control information . . . to restrict the use of downloaded data
past the[,] or prior to[,] [the] negotiated rental period.”) (emphases added).)
Appeal 2012-010300
Application 11/490,421

4
“prevents” limitation recited in claim 78,
4
and Appellants’ arguments have
not persuaded us the Examiner’s conclusion is erroneous. We therefore
sustain the rejection of claim 78. Because Appellants have not presented
separate arguments concerning claims 79–92, we also sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the rejection of claims 78–92.
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
kis

4
(Ans. 5–7.)