Ex Parte Kamperman et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2004

08851304 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2004)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 30
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte FRANCISCUS L. A. J. KAMPERMAN
and FRANK BOSVELD
____________
Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before RUGGIERO, DIXON, and GROSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on the appeal from the final rejection of
claims 2-7, which are all of the claims pending in the present
application. Claim 1 has been canceled. At page 2 of the Answer,
the Examiner indicates that claim 3 is allowed. Accordingly, only
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4-7 is before us on
appeal.
Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
2
The disclosed invention relates to a security device which
manages access to information and which includes a pointer which
indicates a location from which additional data related to the
information may be obtained. As indicated at page 2 of Appellants’
specification, the additional data may be a description of the
information which is offered or a software program which provides
an interface between the security device and a device to which it
is coupled.
Representative claim 2 is reproduced as follows:
2. A security device (SD) for managing access to information (INF),
the security device (SD) providing a pointer (PO) indicating a
location (LO) from which additional data (ADA) may be obtained;
wherein the pointer (PO) comprises at least one element (LB)
which identifies a data stream (DS1) of which the additional data
(ADA) forms part.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Diehl et al. (Diehl) 5,461,675 Oct. 24, 1995
Claims 2 and 4-7, all of the appealed claims before us, stand
finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by
Diehl.
Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the
Examiner, we make reference to the Brief (Paper No. 27) and the
Answer (Paper No. 28) for the respective details thereof.

Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
3
OPINION
We have carefully considered the subject matter on appeal, the
rejection advanced by the Examiner and the evidence of anticipation
relied upon by the Examiner as support for the rejection. We have,
likewise, reviewed and taken into consideration, in reaching our
decision, Appellants’ arguments set forth in the Brief along with
the Examiner’s rationale in support of the rejection and arguments
in rebuttal set forth in the Examiner’s Answer.
It is our view, after consideration of the record before us,
that the Diehl reference fully meets the invention as set forth in
claims 2 and 4-7. Accordingly, we affirm.
Appellants indicate (Brief, page 3) that the claims on appeal
stand or fall together as a group. Consistent with this
indication, Appellants’ arguments are directed solely to features
which are set forth in independent claim 2. Accordingly, we will
select independent claim 2 as the representative claim for all the
claims on appeal, and claims 4-7 will stand or fall with claim 2.
Note In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325, 231 USPQ 136, 137 (Fed. Cir.
1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989, 991, 217 USPQ 1, 3 (Fed. Cir.
1983).
Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
4
We note that anticipation is established only when a single
prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the principles of
inherency, each and every element of a claimed invention as well as
disclosing structure which is capable of performing the recited
functional limitations. RCA Corp. v. Applied Digital Data Systems,
Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir.); cert.
dismissed, 468 U.S. 1228 (1984); W.L. Gore and Associates, Inc. v.
Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 1554, 220 USPQ 303, 313 (Fed. Cir.
1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
At page 3 of the Answer, the Examiner indicates how the
various limitations in representative claim 2 are read on the
disclosure of Diehl. In particular, the Examiner points to Diehl’s
illustrations in Figure 1 along with the accompanying description
beginning at column 2, line 47 of Diehl.
In our view, the Examiner’s analysis is sufficiently
reasonable that we find that the Examiner has as least satisfied
the burden of presenting a prima facie case of anticipation. The
burden is, therefore, upon Appellants to come forward with evidence
and/or arguments which persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima
facie case. Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have
been considered in this decision. Arguments which Appellants could
Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
5
have made but chose not to make in the Brief have not been
considered [see 37 CFR § 1.192(a)].
Appellants’ arguments in response assert that the Examiner has
not shown how each of the claimed features is present in the
disclosure of Diehl so as to establish a case of anticipation. In
particular, Appellants contend (Brief, page 4) that the stored
information (ECM, EMM) in the security card 11 in Diehl, in
contrast to the present invention, provides access to information
by performing descrambling.
After careful review of the Diehl reference in light of the
arguments of record, however, we are in general agreement with the
Examiner’s position as stated in the Answer. Initially, we find
that, although Diehl performs descrambling to access an incoming
data stream, which the Examiner likens to the claimed “additional
data,” there is nothing in the language of representative claim 1
which precludes a descrambling operation. Further, we agree with
the Examiner that the above referenced incoming data stream, which
is pointed to by the stored ECM and EMM data elements and upon
which descrambling is performed, is as much a “location” as that
described at page 4, lines 9-19 of Appellants’ specification in
which an incoming data stream (DS1) is described as a “location” of
additional data identified by the pointer (PO).
Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
6
We also find no error in the differing interpretation of the
disclosure of Diehl as applied to the language of appealed claim 2
offered by the Examiner at page 5 of the Answer. In our view, as
asserted by the Examiner, the processor 12 in Diehl can reasonably
be interpreted as corresponding to the claimed “pointer,” the EMM
packet and EMM data interpreted as corresponding to the claimed
“location” and “additional data,” respectively, with Diehl’s
processor 12 containing software codes which identify a particular
incoming data stream 13 as containing the “additional” (EMM) data.
We note that there are no arguments on the record before us
forthcoming from Appellants which would persuade us of any error in
the Examiner’s line of reasoning with respect to this claim
interpretation.
In view of the above discussion, since the Examiner’s prima
facie case of anticipation has not been overcome by any convincing
arguments from Appellants, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
rejection of representative claim 2, as well as claims 4-7 which
fall with claim 2, is sustained. Therefore, the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 2 and 4-7 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
7
No time period for `taking any subsequent action in connection
with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
JOSEPH L. DIXON ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
ANITA PELLMAN GROSS )
Administrative Patent Judge )
JFR/lp
Appeal No. 2002-2289
Application No. 08/851,304
8
JACK E. HAKEN
US PHILIPS CORPORATION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT
580 WHITE PLAINS ROAD
TARRYTOWN, NY 10591