Ex Parte Koraichi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

12577320 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/577,320 10/12/2009 Najib Koraichi
69590 7590 08/17/2016
International IP Law Group
P.O. BOX 691927
HOUSTON, TX 77269-1927
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11463-PT-US JOST:0068 4017
EXAMINER
NAMAZI, MEHDI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2139
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/17/2016 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):
docketing@iiplg.com
barry.blount@iiplg.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NAJIB KORAICHI and SEBASTIAAN HOEKSEL
Appeal2015-002331 1
Application 12/577,320
Technology Center 2100
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, JOHN P. PINKERTON,
and MELLISA A. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 14, 16, 21, 22, 24, 26, 28, and 33.2 Claims 1-13, 15, 25,
and 27 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and
Reply Brief, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. We
concur with Appellants' contention the Examiner erred in rejecting
1 Appellants identify Vodaphone Holding GmbH as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 17-20, 23, and 29-32 are objected to as being dependent upon a
rejected base claim and are not before us. See Final Act. 1, 8.
Appeal2015-002331
Application 12/577,320
independent claims 14, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because Sato
does not teach or suggest
wherein the terminal allows the control unit [included in the
memory card] to connect to a clock unit arranged external to the
memory card and to retrieve from the clock unit second time
information specifying a current time, the second time
information being used to determine whether the time period has
lapsed,
as recited in claim 14, and as similarly recited in claims 24 and 26. 3 App.
Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4--5.
Citing paragraphs 57-59 of Sato, the Examiner finds "Sato teaches a
standard time acquiring unit (17)[,] which receives current timing from a
Broadcast Station (BS)," and "[t]he terminal device TM determines if the
memory card date (time) inserted into terminal device TM has been expired
or not by comparing the memory card decrypted right[s] information (time
expiration) with clock 18 .... " Final Act. 4; Ans. 6. In response to
Appellants' argument that the time acquiring unit is part of the terminal,
rather than the memory card, the Examiner finds "when [the] memory card
is connected to the terminal, it uses the terminal connection to the external
clock and retrieves the second time information." See Ans. 6-7.
Appellants argue, however, and we agree, "Sato's memory card does
not use the terminal connection, and it does not use the standard time as
external time .... Instead, the memory card is a passive device used by the
terminal." Reply Br. 4--5. In that regard, we note the portions of Sato relied
on by the Examiner teach the terminal device TM reads out the rights
information of the content to be played back from the memory card MC, the
3 Although Appellants make other arguments in the Briefs, we do not
address them because we find this issue is dispositive.
2
Appeal2015-002331
Application 12/577,320
terminal device TM determines whether the playback expiration date has
been set, and, if so, the playback time limit determining unit compares the
current time of the clock with the playback expiration date, and, if the
current time is within the playback expiration date, the conditions are
satisfied to play the content. See Sato i-fi-157-59. In other words, as
Appellants argue, Sato teaches the terminal unit, rather than the memory
card, connects to the clock unit 18. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants'
argument Sato does not teach or suggest that the terminal allows the control
unit included in the memory card "to connect to a clock unit arranged
external to the memory card and to retrieve from the clock unit second time
information specifying a current time, the second time information being
used to determine whether the time period has lapsed," as recited in claim
14. Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 14, as well as claims 24
and 26, which recite similar limitations. For the same reasons, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 16, 21, 22, 28, and 33, which depend
variously from claims 14 and 26.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 14, 16, 21, 22,
24, 26, 28, and 33.
REVERSED
3