Ex Parte Kummer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 14, 2017

13663261 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 14, 2017)

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.
P2012-01-04 (290110.464) 6101
EXAMINER
HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/663,261 10/29/2012
70336 7590 03/14/2017
Seed IP Law Group LLP/EchoStar (290110)
701 FIFTH AVENUE
SUITE 5400
SEATTLE, WA 98104
David A. Kummer
03/14/2017 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 ECHOSTAR TECHNOLIGIES
Appeal 2016-005484
Application 13/663,261
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JEFFERY S. SMITH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1—27. App. Br. 2.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Rather than repeat the Examiner’s positions and Appellant’s arguments in
their entirety, we refer to the following documents for their respective
details: the Final Action mailed April 20, 2015 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal
Brief filed September 29, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer mailed
February 24, 2016 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed April 25, 2016
(“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2016-005484
Application 13/663,261
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant describes the present invention as follows:
A system for securely providing streaming media content
on-demand may include a plurality of receiving devices in which
each receiving device may request the same or different
streaming media content (e.g., stored at a content storage system
of a content delivery network) on-demand using VOD or other
available on-demand services and/or applications associated
with, in communication with or running on the respective
receiving devices. In response, the content storage system of the
content delivery network will encrypt the requested content
uniquely for each received request (e.g., according to an
encryption key that is unique for each or virtually each request)
and deliver the encrypted requested content to the appropriate
respective receiving device of the receiving devices. The
respective receiving devices will then each decrypt the streaming
content as it is being received according to the corresponding
decryption key communicated from a respective individual
secure remote to the respective receiving device.
Abstract.
Independent claim 1, reproduced below with added emphasis, is
illustrative of the appealed claims:
1. A method in a media content transmission system, the
method comprising:
receiving, by the media content transmission system, a
first request for a streaming media content program, the first
request originating from a first secure remote control device
communicatively coupled to a first remote receiving device;
in response to receiving the first request, authenticating,
by the media content transmission system, the first request as
being associated with a first authorized identifier of a plurality of
authorized identifiers, the first authorized identifier being
associated with the first secure remote control device
communicatively coupled to the first remote receiving device;
2
Appeal 2016-005484
Application 13/663,261
in response to authenticating the first request as being
associated with the first authorized identifier, using, by the media
content transmission system, a first encryption key uniquely
associated with the first authorized identifier and uniquely
associated with a specific occurrence of the received request to
begin encrypting at least one portion of the requested streaming
media content program', and
transmitting, by the media content transmission system,
the encrypted at least one portion of the streaming media content
program to the first remote receiving device substantially as the
encrypted at least one portion of the streaming media content
program becomes encrypted.
Claims 1—8, 12—15, 18, 19, 21, 22, 26 and 27 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Ikonen (US 6,804,357 Bl; issued
Oct. 12, 2004) in view of Spies (US 6,055,314; issued Apr. 25, 2000).
Claims 9—11, 16, 17, 20 and 23—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Ikonen in view of Spies and Epstein
(US 6,993,134 Bl; issued Jan. 31, 2006).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
FINDINGS AND CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Ikonen discloses every limitation of
independent claim 1 except for the claim limitation
in response to receiving the first request, authenticating, by the
media content transmission system, the first request as being
associated with a first authorized identifier of a plurality of
authorized identifiers ... in response to authenticating the first
request as being associated with the first authorized identifier,
using, by the media content transmission system, a first
3
Appeal 2016-005484
Application 13/663,261
encryption key uniquely associated with the first authorized
identifier and uniquely associated with a specific occurrence of
the received request to begin encrypting at least one portion of
the requested streaming media content program.
Final Act. 5.
The Examiner finds that Spies teaches a media content transmission
system that verifies that the first request is associated with a particular
authorized user {id. at 5—6 (citing Spies col. 13,11. 55—61, col. 14,11. 59-64;
FIGs. 2, 9)) and uses a first encryption key for the requested media-content
streaming, wherein the first encryption key is uniquely associated with the
first authorized user and uniquely associate with a specific occurrence of the
received request {id. at 6 (citing Spies col. 3,11. 36—50; col. 16,11. 19—39;
FIGs. 2,9)). The Examiner also concludes that motivation existed to apply
Spies’s request-authenticating technique into the system of Ikonen. Id. at 6.
Appellant asserts, inter alia,
Just because the program key in Spies may be created at the point
of order [it] does not mean [the program key code] is uniquely
associated with a specific occurrence of the received request.
The same key could be generated for two different orders for the
same program, even if they were generated at the time of each
order. This is because, in Spies, the program key “is unique to
the ordered video content program”, not the occurrence of the
request (see col. 3, lines 44-51 of Spies above, emphasis added).
Thus, in Spies when the same program key is generated for the
same program requested at two different times, that program key
is unique to that program, but not unique to the specific
occurrence of the request.
App. Br. 9.
4
Appeal 2016-005484
Application 13/663,261
ANALYSIS
Spies merely teaches that the program key is unique to the program,
but the passages cited by the Examiner do not state further that the key is
unique to the specific occurrence. See Spies col. 3,11. 44^47 (“The video
encryption device encrypts the video data stream using the cryptographic
program key that is unique to the ordered video content program and
included in the decryption capabilities.); id. col. 5,11. 18—19 (“There is one
program key for each video content program”); id. col. 16,11. 19-21 (“At
step 318 in FIG. 11, the key manager 222 executing on headend server 210
provides a program key for the ordered video content program.”).
The Examiner further explains that this language is satisfied because
while Spies discloses alternative embodiments in which the program key can
be created at the point of order, or previously generated and stored in
program keys database 212, the Examiner is only relying on the former
embodiment in which the program key is created at the point of order.
Ans. 4. However, the Examiner has not set forth evidence to support the
conclusion that creating a program key at the point of order necessarily or
implicitly entails creating a key that is unique to the occurrence, as well as to
the content.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 14, and 22, each
of which sets forth that the first encryption key is uniquely associated with a
specific occurrence of the request. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of those claims or of claims 2—8, 12, 13, 15, 18, 19, 21,
26 and 27, which depend from these claims.
5
Appeal 2016-005484
Application 13/663,261
With respect to the remaining rejection of dependent claims 9—11, 16,
17, 20 and 23—25, the Examiner does not rely upon Epstein to cure the
deficiency of the obviousness rejection explained above. See Final Act. 20.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of those claims
either.2
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—27 is reversed.
REVERSED
2 We limit our review to the question raised on appeal: whether Spies
teaches a first encryption key that is uniquely associated with a specific
occurrence of the received request. We do not address the separate question
of whether this limitation would have been obvious in light of the combined
teachings of at least Ikonen and Spies.
6