Ex Parte KudelskiDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 25, 201613042011 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/042,011 03/07/2011 24510 7590 DLA PIPER LLP (US) ATTN: PATENT GROUP P.O. Box 2758 Reston, VA 20195 08/29/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Andrl KUDELSKI 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. 3829-084 us 6147 EXAMINER ALATA, YASSIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2427 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/29/2016 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): PatentProsecutionRes@dlapiper.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDRE KUDELSKI Appeal2015-001890 Application 13/042,011 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., KEVIN C. TROCK, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nagravision S.A. App. Br. 1. Appeal2015-001890 Application 13/042,011 THE INVENTION Appellants' invention aims to speed up the channel change switching time in Pay-TV systems caused by processing of entitlement messages and sending of control words to check for rights to descramble channels. See Abstract. Appellants' invention proposes to calculate control words for all channels using an inverse cryptographic function, rather than wait to receive them. See Spec. 2:6-18. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for controlling access to a plurality of channels by a receiver/decoder comprising a security module, each channel being encrypted by a specific channel control word, each channel having a channel identifier and transporting entitlement messages containing at least the current channel control word and the channel access conditions, this method comprising the steps of: tuning to a first channel having a first channel identifier by the receiver/decoder; transmitting the first channel identifier to the security module by the receiver/decoder; receiving first entitlement messages containing at least a first control word by the receiver/decoder; transmitting the first entitlement messages to the security module by the receiver/decoder; decrypting the first entitlement messages and verifying the channel access conditions by the security module; if the access conditions are met, returning the first control word to the receiver/decoder by the security module; storing of the first control word and the first channel identifier by the security module; tuning to a second channel having a second channel identifier and encrypted by a second control word by the receiver/decoder, the first control word being the result of a 2 Appeal2015-001890 Application 13/042,011 cryptographic function using the first channel identifier and a root control word, the second control word being the result of the cryptographic function using the second channel identifier and the root control word; transmitting the second channel identifier to the security module by the receiver/decoder; calculating, by the security module, the second control word by the following steps: calculating the root control word with an inverse cryptographic function using the first control word and the first channel identifier; calculating the second control word with the cryptographic function using the root control word and the second channel identifier; and returning the second control word to the receiver I decoder, wherein the root control word is not received by the receiver I decoder. REFERENCES and REJECTION Claims 1-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maria Van De Ven (US 2004/0215691 Al, Oct. 28, 2004), Coutrot (US 5,615,265, Mar. 25, 1997) and Dureau (US 2007/0234395 Al, Oct. 4, 2007). ANALYSIS Appellants argue that in Coutrot the root control word is received by the receiver while the claim requires that the root control word is not received by the receiver. App. Br. 12-13. Appellants further argue that "[t]he claimed invention ... calculates the root control word from a current control word and a channel identifier, which is different than what Coutrot teaches." App. Br. 14. 3 Appeal2015-001890 Application 13/042,011 We agree with Appellants. The Examiner relies upon Figure 5 of Coutrot, and its associated description, as disclosing "calculating a root check word with an inverse cryptographic function using a first control word and a first channel identifier and that the root control word is not received by the receiver/decoder." Ans. 5. Figure 5 of Coutrot, however, depicts that a cryptogram of the root check word ("CMCR") is sent by the service operator and received by the receiver. The Examiner further points to Figure 1 of Coutrot as confirming that the root control word is not transmitted and that "[ o ]nly all of the scrambled programs Pei, the common part of the access check message MCT AC, the specific parts of the specific access title check messages MCTASi and the service description channel VS are transmitted." Ans. 6. But Coutrot teaches that the common part of the access check message (MCT AC) contains the cryptogram of the root check word. See Coutrot 5:50-55. Thus, Figure 1 of Coutrot, which shows the common part of the access check message being transmitted, confirms that a cryptogram of the root check word is transmitted, rather than the opposite. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 7 and 10, which contain similar limitations and were rejected on the same basis. See Final Act. 9. For the same reasons we reverse the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2---6, 8, 9, and 11- 19, which depend from one of claims 1, 7, and 10. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-19 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation