Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 28, 2013

11091881 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte BYUNG-RAE LEE, TAE-SUNG KIM,
JOONG-CHUL YOON, and KYUNG-IM JUNG
____________________

Appeal 2010-008498
Application 11/091,881
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
TRENTON A. WARD, Administrative Patent Judges.

WARD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a rejection of
claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22, the only claims pending in the application on
appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2010-008498
Application 11/091,881

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to a portable storage device and
method of managing files in the portable storage device. See Abstract. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 12, which is reproduced below with certain disputed limitations
italicized:
12. A method of managing a file in a portable storage device,
comprising:
sorting digital rights management data from received data;
forming a file comprising the digital rights management data;
and
storing the file in a storage module;
wherein the storing the file comprises:
setting a restricted region in the storage module using a
control module; and
allocating a file identifier mapped to the restricted region
to the file comprising the digital rights management data
and storing the file in the restricted region.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:
Dolphin
Downs
US 5,677,953
US 6,574,609 B1
Oct. 14, 1997
Jun. 3, 2003

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 12, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Dolphin. Ans. 3-4.

1 Our decision will make reference to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,”
filed Nov. 24, 2009) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Mar. 25, 2010) and
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 25, 2010).
Appeal 2010-008498
Application 11/091,881

3
Claims 5-11 and 16-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dolphin and Downs. Ans. 4-8.

THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OVER DOLPHIN
The Examiner finds that Dolphin discloses every recited feature of
claim 12 including “setting a restricted region in the storage module using a
control module” and “allocating a file identifier mapped to the restricted
region to the file comprising the digital rights management data.” Ans. 3.
Appellants argue that Dolphin fails to teach (1) any specific restricted
region in which DRM data, such as rights object data is stored, and (2) file
identifiers mapped to a restricted region being allocated to a DRM data file.
App. Br. 14.

ISSUE
Under § 102, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 12 by finding
that the cited reference discloses “setting a restricted region in the storage
module using a control module” and “allocating a file identifier mapped to
the restricted region to the file comprising the digital rights management
data”?

ANALYSIS
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s anticipation
rejection of claim 12. The Examiner finds that the claim 12 limitation of
“setting a restricted region in the storage module using a control module” is
anticipated by the Dolphin disclosure regarding partitioning data stored on a
portable readable medium to allow access restrictions to be placed on the use
Appeal 2010-008498
Application 11/091,881

4
of that data. Ans. 3, 8. Furthermore, the Examiner finds that the claim 12
limitation of “allocating a file identifier mapped to the restricted region to
the file comprising the digital rights management data” is anticipated by the
Dolphin disclosure regarding assigning Key Material Identifiers (“KMID”)
to the partitioned data. Ans. 3, 8.
Appellants argue that although Dolphin teaches that data can be
divided into sets and that different sets of data may be protected, accessed,
and used differently, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, Dolphin does not
teach “any specific restricted region in which DRM data, such as rights
object data, is stored, nor does this teach any file identifiers mapped to a
restricted region being allocated to a DRM data file.” App. Br. 14
(emphases omitted). More particularly, Appellants argue that claim 12
requires a specific restricted region and states that the “specification clearly
describes that the restricted region is physically or logically separate.” App.
Br. 15 (emphasis added). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation,2 the
“restricted region” can be met by any “logically separate” file comprising
the digital rights management data. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of
error in the Examiner’s findings that Dolphin discloses a restricted region.
Appellants further argue that “even if Dolphin were to teach a specific
area set aside for a data set having restricted access (which it does not), this
does not disclose or suggest that DRM data is stored in such a specific area.”
App. Br. 15. Appellants’ arguments are contrary to the disclosure in
Dolphin cited by the Examiner. Dolphin discloses that the KMIDs are

2 During patent examination, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by
skilled artisans. Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (en banc) (citations omitted).
Appeal 2010-008498
Application 11/091,881

5
“indexes or identifying codes for the purpose of correlating . . . access
codes” and that the “encrypted or scrambled data along with the KMID is
then stored on a portable storage medium or server.” Dolphin, col. 3, ll. 4-6,
13-15. Because Dolphin expressly discloses the storage of the KMID along
with the encrypted data, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that
Dolphin does not disclose or suggest DRM data is stored in a restricted
region.
As to the file identifier limitation in claim 12, Appellants argue that
“[e]ven if Dolphin were interpreted to teach a specific area of a storage
module set aside for the data having restricted access, there is no disclosure
or suggest [sic] that any identifier mapped to such a region is allocated to
any file comprising DRM.” App. Br. 15-16 (emphasis omitted). Contrary to
Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner finds that identifier mapping of the
DRM data file is met by Dolphin’s disclosure that the KMID or access code
is assigned to the partitioned data. Ans. 3, 9. We see no error in the
Examiner’s position that the KMID disclosed in Dolphin anticipates the “file
identifier” recited in claim 12.
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 12, and claims 1, 3, 4, 14, and 15 not separately argued with
particularity.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER DOLPHIN AND DOWNS
Appellants argue that claims 5-11 and 16-22 are allowable over
Dolphin and Downs because Downs fails to remedy the deficiencies of
Dolphin argued by Appellants with respect to the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4,
12, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. App. Br. 17. We are not persuaded
Appeal 2010-008498
Application 11/091,881

6
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5-11 and 16-22 for the reasons
discussed above.

ORDER
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-12, and 14-22 is
affirmed. 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

babc