Ex Parte Patel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

12893895 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/893,895 09/29/2010
25310 7590 04/01/2016
VOLPE AND KOENIG, P,C
DEPT. AMD
UNITED PLAZA
30 SOUTH 17TH STREET
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Navin PATEL
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.
1972.1630000 4975
EXAMINER
LANE, GREGORY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2438
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2016 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):
eoffice@volpe-koenig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NA VIN PATEL
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant files this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is ATI Technologies
Unlimited Liability Corporation. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellant's claimed invention relates to multimedia content
protection, including decrypting protected multimedia content using a key
and encrypting the decrypted multimedia content using local keys to create
locally protected multimedia content for providing to a graphics processor
over a secure connection. See Abstract.
Of the claims on appeal, claims 1, 5, and 9 are illustrative of the
subject matter of the appeal and are reproduced below with emphasis added
to highlight disputed limitations.
1. A method of providing secure handling of provider
protected multimedia content, comprising:
decrypting, in a hardware-based multimedia content
protection device (MMCP), the provider protected multimedia
content using one or more provider keys;
encrypting, in the MMCP, the decrypted multimedia
content using one or more local keys that are distinct from the
one or more provider keys to create locally protected
multimedia content; and
providing the locally protected multimedia content to a
graphics processor over a secure connection.
5. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
configuring a private logical channel to create the secure
connection.
9. The method of claim 1, further comprising:
providing one or more second local keys corresponding
to respective local keys from the MMCP securely to the
graphics processor.
2
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) TheExaminerrejectedclaims 1,4,8,9, 13, 16, 17, 19,and21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Ducharme (US 2007 /0174621 Al; pub. July 26, 2007), Kaylani et al. (US
2006/0158568 Al; pub. July 20, 2006) (hereinafter "Kaylani"), and
Moreillon (US 2006/0136718 Al; pub. June 22, 2006), collectively referred
to as the "first combination."
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ducharme, Kaylani,
and Deering (US 7,079,157 B2; July 18, 2006).2
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ducharme, Kaylani, and Cooper
et al. (US 2007 /0223512 Al; pub. Sept. 27, 2007) (hereinafter "Cooper").
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 6 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Ducharme, Kaylani, Cooper,
and Strasser et al. (US 2005/0265547 Al; pub. Dec. 1, 2005) (hereinafter
"Strasser").
(5) The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ducharme, Kaylani, and
Anandpura et al. (US 2007/0011602 Al; pub. Jan. 11, 2007) (hereinafter
"Anandpura").
(6) The Examiner rejected claim 11under35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ducharme, Kaylani, and
2 The Examiner inadvertently left Moreillon out of the listing of the
references for the cited combination for claims 2, 3, 5-7, 10-12, 14, 15, and
18. See Ans. 6.
3
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895
Rozman et al. (US 2006/0031940 Al; pub. Feb. 9, 2006) (hereinafter
"Rozman").
(7) The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ducharme, Kaylani, Rozman,
and Evans (US 2005/0166042 Al; pub. July 28, 2005).
(8) The Examiner rejected claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ducharme, Kaylani, and
Linnartz (US 2005/0251481 Al; pub. Nov. 10, 2005).
(9) The Examiner rejected claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ducharme, Kaylani, Moreillon,
and Rozman.
(10) The Examiner rejected claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Ducharme, Kaylani, Moreillon,
and Ha et al. (US 6,035,349; Mar. 7, 2000) (hereinafter "Ha").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellant.
We disagree with Appellant's arguments and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the February 13, 2013 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-19) and (2) the
reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 3-7). We
incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless
otherwise noted. We, however, highlight and address specific findings and
arguments below for emphasis.
4
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895
(1) Combining the cited references
Appellant argues the Examiner makes each of the obviousness
combinations improperly because the Examiner (i) determines obviousness
from a user's perspective (i.e., stating a "user" of the technology would be
motivated to combine references) rather than the perspective of one of
ordinary skill in the art, (ii) merely cites to each patent's field of invention
rather than providing clearly articulated reasoning for combining the
references, and (iii) engages in impermissible hindsight to combine
references. See Br. 9-10 (citing Final Act. 4, 6-10, 13-19).
First, Appellant argues "obviousness must be determined from the
perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application
was filed; not a 'user' of whatever technology is described in the patent
document." See Br. 9. Secondly, Appellant argues "while the 'field of the
invention' may be relevant to obviousness in some situations, two patent
documents having similar fields" alone is insufficient to properly combine
the references - the Examiner still must provide articulated reasoning with
rationale underpinning to combine references. See Br. 9-10. Lastly,
Appellant argues the Examiner relies on impermissible hindsight as
evidenced by the Examiner failing to provide articulate reasoning for
making the combinations. See Br. 10.
The Examiner finds (i) Ducharme teaches using "a multimedia data
system used to implement a security function," (ii) Kaylani teaches using "a
multimedia system for providing data content," and (iii) Moreillon teaches
using "multimedia devices for the transmission of data content over
networks." See Ans. 5 (citing Ducharme i-f 11, Fig. 1; Kaylani Fig. 1). The
Examiner concludes "a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been
5
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895
motivated to combine [these three] references since the common link
between the references includes the use of a multimedia device to implement
the various functions taught in the individual arts." See Ans. 5; see also
Final Act. 3--4 (citing Kaylani i-f 4), 4 (citing Moreillon i-f 2).
We find Appellant's arguments unpersuasive. We find the Examiner
provides "articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support
the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441F.3d977, 988 (Fed.
Cir. 2006), cited with approval in KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S.
398, 418 (2007). The Examiner reasons a person of ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to combine Ducharme, Kaylani, and Moreillon
to implement various known functions for use with multimedia devices. See
Ans. 5; see also KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007)
("[I]f a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of
ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual
application is beyond his or her skill."). Further, Appellant's argument -
which we also find to be conclusory - that the Examiner uses
impermissible hindsight is premised on a lack of articulated reasoning to
combine the references, and thus, we also find this argument unpersuasive.
We also note the Examiner's Answer clarifies that the Examiner's
reasoning to combine the cited references is from the perspective of one of
ordinary skill in the art rather than a mere user of the technology. See Ans.
5. Appellant did not file a reply brief to address this clarification nor did
Appellant petition to request that the Answer be designated as a new ground
of rejection. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1207 .03
(IV) (8th ed., Rev. 9, Aug. 2012).
6
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895
(2) Moreillon as a reference (or certain dependent claims
Appellant argues the Examiner erred by failing to include Moreillon
in the recited list of combined references for dependent claims 2, 3, 5-7, 10-
12, 14, 15, and 18. See Br. 11. Specifically, Appellant argues:
It is well understood that any dependent claim rejection
must include at least the same combination of references as the
rejection of the claim to which it depends. Yet the Office
erroneously fails this basic principle for many dependent claim
rejections by inexplicable missing Moreillon. Failing to
consider Moreillon is not a mere typographical error-it is a legal
error.
Br. 11. Appellant also argues, as above, that the Examiner fails to provide
clearly articulated reasoning for the combinations involving Moreillon. See
Br. 11. Appellant posits that Appellant has been "deprived of the
opportunity to rebut the merits of these combinations---e.g., analyze the
specific teachings relied on by the Office to determine if the combinations
would change the principles of operation of the references, make a reference
inoperable, teach away from the combinations, etc." Br. 11.
The Examiner finds Moreillon's omission from the combinational
recitations was inadvertent. See Ans. 6. The Examiner also finds for the
dependent claim combinations that multimedia content devices are used to
perform various known tasks, and Moreillon does not teach away from the
claim limitations, nor otherwise detract from the combinational teachings.
See Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner and find Appellant's arguments
unpersuasive. As we discussed above, and as the Examiner finds,
7
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895
combining the cited references, including Moreillon, to implement various
known functions for use with multimedia devices would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417 ("[I]f a
technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the
same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is
beyond his or her skill.").
Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that the omission of
Moreillon in the combination recital was inadvertent and simply a
typographical error, which we find did not deprive Appellant of the ability to
analyze the specific teachings of the complete combinations. For example,
with respect to these dependent claims, the Examiner begins each rejection
by re-stating the recited combination for the parent claim. See Final Act. 10
("In regards to claim 2, the combination of Ducharme and Kaylani taught the
method of claim 1. "), 12-15. The Examiner then identifies an additional
reference (with additional reasoning to combine) to add to the combination
for the parent claim to render obvious the dependent claim at issue. See
Final Act. 10, 12-15. We find, in addition, Appellant was apprised of the
proper combination (i.e., also including Moreillon) by its correct recital in
the rejection of the parent claim, as well as articulated reasoning for the
parent claim combination. See e.g., Final Act. 3--4 (identifying Ducharme,
Kaylani, and Moreillon as the combination for claim 1 ).
We also note that the Examiner's Answer clarifies the combination
includes Moreillon. See Ans. 6. Appellant did not file a reply brief to
address this clarification nor did Appellant petition to request that the
Answer be designated as a new ground of rejection.
8
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895
(3) Locally protected multimedia content
Appellant argues the first combination fails to teach or suggest
"providing the locally protected multimedia content to a graphics processor
over a secure connection," as recited in independent claims 1, 13, and 19.
Br. 12-13. Appellant argues the Examiner relies on Kaylani "'to teach
providing data content to a graphics processor'" and relies on Moreillon to
teach "'the use of a locally generated encryption key."' See Br. 12-13
(citing Adv. Act. 2). Appellant then contends "the use [of] an encryption
key, whether locally generated or otherwise, does not fill the gaps between
the distinguishing feature and the teachings of Kaylani." See Br. 13.
The Examiner finds the first combination teaches this disputed
element. See Ans. 6-7. Specifically, the Examiner finds (i) Kaylani teaches
"providing data content to a graphical processor," (ii) Ducharme teaches
"multimedia content may be decrypted/encrypted utilizing an
encryption/decryption module unit," and (iii) Moreillon teaches "the use of a
locally generated encryption key." See Ans. 6 (citing Kaylani i-f 35,
Ducharme i-f 26, Moreillon i-f 10). The Examiner then concludes "the locally
generated encryption key taught by Moreillon, could be used by the
encryption module, taught by Ducharme, to generate a locally protected
multimedia content[, and b ]y definition, the use of encryption during the
transmission of data across a communication channel defines a secure
channel." See Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that the first combination teaches this
disputed limitation. See, e.g., Kaylani i-f 35; Ducharme i-f 26; Moreillon i-f 10.
9
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895
We also find Appellant provides no persuasive evidence contrary to this
finding. See Br. 12-13; see also In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
1974) ("Attorney's argument in a brief cannot take the place of evidence.").
(4) Logical channels
Appellant argues Cooper fails to teach or suggest claim 5 's "logical
channel." See Br. 13-14. Appellant begins by arguing claim 5 requires
"configuring a private logical channel to create the secure connection,"
which "is based on encryption techniques to create a secure channel." See
Br. 13. Appellant then contends Cooper instead teaches or suggests
"splitting a single physical channel into multiple 'logical' channels." See Br.
13.
The Examiner finds the combination of Cooper and Moreillon -
Moreillon is part of the combination for claim 1 and Cooper is added for the
combination for dependent claim 5 - teach a private logical channel, as
defined by the Appellant, because Moreillon's encryption techniques and
Cooper's logical channel teach encryption methods applied to a logical
channel. See Ans. 7.
We agree with the Examiner that the claim 5 combination, which
includes Moreillon and Cooper, teaches configuring a private logical
channel to create the secure connection. See, e.g., Moreillon i-fi-12, 1 O;
Cooper ,-r 2, Fig. 1; see also In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986) (finding each reference "must be read, not in isolation, but for
what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.").
(5) Local Keys
Appellant argues the first combination, and Ducharme in particular,
fails to teach or suggest "providing one or more second local keys
10
Appeal2014-005209
Application 12/893,895
corresponding to respective local keys from the MMCP securely to the
graphics processor," as recited in claim 9 and similarly recited in claim 16.
See Br. 14. Specifically, Appellant argues Ducharme fails to teach or
suggest local keys. See id.
The Examiner finds the first combination teaches this disputed
limitation. See Ans. 7. Specifically, the Examiner finds Ducharme teaches
"a cryptographic key may be used to perform encryption/decryption of video
data," and Moreillon teaches "encryption key(s) may be locally generated."
See Ans. 7 (citing Ducharme i-f 26, Moreillon i-f 10).
We agree with the Examiner that the first combination teaches this
disputed limitation. See Ducharme i-f 26, Moreillon i-f 1 O; see also Merck,
800 F.2d at 1097 (finding each reference "must be read, not in isolation, but
for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.").
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11