Ex Parte Read et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 201511982885 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2015) Copy Citation 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. 11/982,885 11/05/2007 Chris Read 80398P689 3774 8791 7590 05/01/2015 BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN 1279 Oakmead Parkway Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040 EXAMINER ASHRAF, WASEEM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2455 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/01/2015 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 CHRIS READ and ROBERT L. HARDACKER 1 ________________ Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Invention Appellants’ invention is directed to a method of embedding a content identifier identifying a piece of content into the piece of content. Abstract. Content embedded with the content identifier is then encoded and packaged 1 Appellants identify Sony Corporation and Sony Electronics Inc. as the real parties in interest. Br. 3. Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 2 for transmission by a content provider to a content delivery operator. Id. The packaged content is delivered to a subscriber free of obfuscation according to a contractual agreement to preserve the content identifier. Id. Exemplary Claims Claims 1, 4, 5, 9, and 27, reproduced below with key limitations emphasized, are representative: 1. A method comprising: embedding a content identifier into a piece of content in a pre-determined format, the content identifier identifying the content; and encoding the content embedded with the content identifier into a packaged content to be transmitted from a content provider to a content delivery operator via a transmission medium, the packaged content being delivered to a subscriber by the content delivery operator according to a contractual agreement between the content provider and the content delivery operator that obligates the content delivery operator to deliver the packaged content free of obfuscation after decoding such that the content identifier is preserved for identification of the content. 4. The method of claim 1 wherein the contractual agreement requires the content delivery operator to provide bit-accurate decoded content. 5. The method of claim 4 wherein the bit-accurate decoded content is provided over a high definition multimedia interface (HDMI) or an equivalent digital interface. 9. A method comprising: interfacing to a delivering unit to receive a piece of content embedded with a content identifier in a pre-determined format, the content identifier identifying the content, the content being transmitted from a content provider to a content delivery Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 3 operator and delivered by the content delivery operator according to a contractual agreement between the content provider and the content delivery operator that obligates the content delivery operator to deliver the packaged content free of obfuscation after decoding such that the content identifier is preserved for identification of the content; and extracting the content identifier from the content according to the pre-determined format. 27. The method of claim 9 further comprising: authenticating a digitally signed certificate embedded into the piece [o]f content, the certificate corresponding to the contractual agreement. Rejections The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 8, and 16–19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiser 2 (US 7,263,497 B1; Aug. 28, 2007) and Ram (US 2002/0194485 A1; Dec. 19, 2002). Final Act. 3–7. The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiser, Ram, and Shimomura (US 6,473,858 B1; Oct. 29, 2002). Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiser, Ram, Shimomura, and Dua (US 2007/ 0180485 A1; Aug. 2, 2007). Final Act. 8–9. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 7, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiser, Ram, and Dua. Final Act. 9–11. 2 In relying on Wiser, the Examiner also relies on Levine (US 6,330,673 B1; Dec. 11, 2001), which Wiser incorporates by reference. See Final Act. 3 (citing Wiser col. 8, ll. 27–32). Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 4 The Examiner rejects claims 9, 12–14, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiser, Ram, and Cookson (US 6,591,365 B1; July 8, 2003). Final Act. 11–16. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiser, Ram, Cookson, and Dua. Final Act. 17– 18. The Examiner rejects claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiser, Ram, Cookson, and Shimomura. Final Act. 18–19. The Examiner rejects claims 26 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiser, Ram, and Cooperman (US 5,613,004; March 18, 1997). Final Act. 19–22. The Examiner rejects claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wiser, Ram, Cookson, and Cooperman. Final Act. 22–23. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wiser and Ram teaches or suggests: [(1)] embedding a content identifier into a piece of content . . . , the content identifier identifying the content; and [(2)] the packaged content being delivered to a subscriber by the content delivery operator according to a contractual agreement between the content provider and the content delivery operator that obligates the content delivery operator to deliver the packaged content free of obfuscation after decoding such that the content identifier is preserved for identification of the content, as recited in claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wiser, Ram, and Shimomura teaches or suggests “wherein the contractual agreement Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 5 requires the content delivery operator to provide bit-accurate decoded content,” as recited in claim 4? 3. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wiser, Ram, Shimomura, and Dua teaches or suggests “wherein the bit-accurate decoded content is provided over a high definition multimedia interface (HDMI) or an equivalent digital interface,” as recited in claim 5? 4. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Wiser, Ram, and Cookson teaches or suggests “extracting the content identifier from the content according to the pre-determined format,” as recited in claim 9? 5. Did the Examiner err in concluding it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of Wiser, Ram, Cookson, and Cooperman, in the manner recited in claim 27? ANALYSIS We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the action from which this appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation primarily for emphasis. Claims 1–3, 8, 16–19, 26, and 28 The Examiner finds Wiser’s embedded watermarks, which can include information such as song titles or other characteristics of watermarked data, teach or suggest embedding a content identifier into a piece of content, the content identifier identifying the content, as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing, e.g., Wiser col. 8, ll. 8–10 and 23–25, col. 14, ll. 17–32; Levine col. 8, ll. 27–32). Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 6 Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Wiser merely discloses watermarking [an] audio image . . . , not embedding a content identifier into a piece of content in a pre-determined format, the content identifier identifying the content.” Br. 13. In particular, Appellants argue the cited portions of Wiser merely state “that the raw watermark data includes data to identify characteristics of the watermarked audio signal.” Br. 14. Appellants further argue that, although Levine “states that these characteristics include the commercial transaction and the identification of the end user purchaser[,] [n]one of these characteristics pertain to the audio signal (allegedly, ‘the content’).” Id. Appellants’ arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error because, as the Examiner correctly notes, the Specification broadly describes what a content identifier may include: The content identifier may include any information that identifies or characterizes the content. The content identifier may duplicate some or all the metadata information that is included as part of the normal packaging of the content prior to transmission to the content delivery operator. The content identifier may include information such as serial number, identification number, temporal information (e.g., frame number, elapse time) location identifier, title, date of theatrical release, summary of plot, cast, and crew, Motion Picture Association of America (“MPAA”) rating, length, price per view, scheduling information, copyright information, etc. The content identifier may also be in any form. It may be a digital representation of visual data (e.g., image, graphics, video), audio data, or textual data. Spec. ¶ 18 (emphases added) (cited by Ans. 4). In light of such a broad description of a content identifier, we agree with the Examiner that characteristics such as a Wiser’s song title (Wiser col. 14, l. 33) or Levine’s characteristics of a watermarked audio signal Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 7 (Levine col. 16, ll. 54–56) teach or suggest the claimed content identifier. Final Act. 3. Appellants argue a watermark that identifies the content “would be extremely easy to detect and therefore defeat[s] the purpose [of using] the watermark to protect against copying or duplication.” Br. 13. However, Appellants do not provide persuasive evidence to support this allegation. Mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled to little probative value. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wiser and Ram teaches or suggests “embedding a content identifier into a piece of content . . . , the content identifier identifying the content,” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 3. In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner further relies on Ram’s rights groups, which include transport rights and conditions related to watermarking, to teach or suggest delivering packaged content data to a subscriber according to a contractual agreement between the content provider and the content delivery operator that obligates the content delivery operator to deliver the packaged content free of obfuscation after decoding such that the content identifier is preserved for identification of the content. Id. at 4 (citing Ram ¶¶ 71, 74). Appellants argue the Examiner erred because Wiser’s “authoring tools 102 provides for compression of the audio images, watermarking, and encryption, which means that the delivery is not free of obfuscation.” Br. 15. However, we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claimed delivery “free of obfuscation”—as broadly worded and described (see, e.g., Spec. ¶ 44)— encompasses delivery where “the content identifier is Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 8 preserved after decoding (‘free of obfuscation after decoding such that the content identifier is preserved for identification of the content’).” Ans. 5. Thus, compression, watermarking, encryption, etc., do not constitute obfuscation, as proscribed by the disputed claim recitation, provided that after decoding (i.e., after decompression, watermark retrieval, decryption, etc.) the content identifier is preserved for identification of the content. As Appellants acknowledge, robust watermarks, such as those taught or suggested by Wiser (through the incorporation of Levine), can “survive digital signal processing such as analog-to-digital or digital-to-analog conversions.” Br. 13 (citing Levine col. 2, ll. 9–15). Such watermarks, by preventing their erosion and by ensuring they are retrievable (Levine col. 2, ll. 11–13), teach or suggest the delivery of content free of obfuscation after decoding such that the content identifier is preserved for identification of the content (i.e., such that the watermark can be retrieved). Ans. 4 (citing, e.g., Wiser col. 8, ll. 23–32). Appellants further argue “there is no teaching of ‘content free of obfuscation after the normal decoding’ in Ra[m] . . . . [because] no decoding is performed on the printed book.” Br. 16. However, Appellants unpersuasively attack Ram individually, rather than showing error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings of Ram and Wiser. Specifically, the Examiner merely relies on Ram’s teachings of rights (such as transport rights) within a rights group being associated with a set of conditions such as a type of watermark to teach or suggest a contractual obligation to deliver a watermark intact. See Final Act. 4 (citing Ram ¶¶ 71, 74) (Ram teaches or suggests “a requirement to provide the content with the watermark intact”). As discussed above, the Examiner correctly relies on Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 9 Wiser’s robust watermark to teach or suggest delivery free of obfuscation such that the content identifier is preserved for identification of the content. See Ans. 4. We agree with the Examiner it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to have Wiser’s delivery using a robust watermark accord with Ram’s contractual obligation where the type of watermark (e.g., a robust watermark) can be a transport right condition. See Final Act. 4. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner the combination of Wiser and Ram teaches or suggests: the packaged content being delivered to a subscriber by the content delivery operator according to a contractual agreement between the content provider and the content delivery operator that obligates the content delivery operator to deliver the packaged content free of obfuscation after decoding such that the content identifier is preserved for identification of the content, as recited in claim 1. Id. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 8, and 16–19, which Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 16–17. Appellants make similar arguments with respect to claims 6, 7, 22, 26 and 28. Br. 20, 24. Accordingly, for the same reasons discussed above, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 6, 7, 22, 26, and 28. Claims 4 and 20 The Examiner finds Shimomura’s MPEG-2 encoding of a broadcast teaches or suggests wherein the contractual agreement requires the content delivery operator to provide bit-accurate decoded content, as recited in claim 4. Final Act. 8 (citing Shimomura col. 9, ll. 18–21). Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 10 Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “a contract to (i) encode data into an MPEG-2 transport stream and (ii) provide the encoded data to the satellite operator makes no mention of ‘bit-accurate decoded content.’” Br. 18. However, as the Examiner correctly notes, Appellants’ Specification discloses the MPEG-2 video coding standard as an example of a video coding standard that can provide a bit-accurate decode of the content. Ans. 6 (citing Spec. ¶ 34). As such, Shimomura’s use of MPEG-2 encoding teaches or suggests the claimed bit-accurate decoded content. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner the combination of Wiser, Ram, and Shimomura teaches or suggests “wherein the contractual agreement requires the content delivery operator to provide bit-accurate decoded content,” as recited in claim 4. Final Act. 8. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4, and claim 20, which Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 17– 19. Claims 5 and 21 The Examiner finds Dua’s acceptance of digital video input via an HDMI connection teaches or suggests wherein the bit-accurate decoded content is provided over a high definition multimedia interface (HDMI) or an equivalent digital interface, as recited in claim 5. Final Act. 9 (citing Dua ¶¶ 43, 90). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Dua merely discloses a set-top box with HDMI, not a bit-accurate decoded content provided over HDMI.” Br. 19. In particular, Appellants argue “HDMI is merely a high-definition media interface. It does not require that the data stream must be bit-accurate decoded content.” Id. However, as the Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 11 Examiner correctly notes, the Examiner relies on Shimomura, rather than Dua, to teach or suggest the claimed bit-accurate decoded content. Ans. 6. The Examiner correctly relies on Dua’s HDMI, which provides digital video input, to teach or suggest an HDMI over which the bit-accurate decoded content can be delivered. Id. at 6–7 (citing Dua ¶¶ 43, 90). Appellants’ argument is neither responsive to the Examiner’s findings nor persuasive of error. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner the combination of Wiser, Ram, Shimomura, and Dua teaches or suggests “wherein the bit-accurate decoded content is provided over a high definition multimedia interface (HDMI) or an equivalent digital interface,” as recited in claim 5. Final Act. 8–9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 5, and claim 21, which Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 19. Claims 9–15 and 23–25 The Examiner finds Cookson’s rules that govern copying—which may be included in a watermark—teach or suggest extracting a content identifier from the content according to a predetermined-format, as recited in claim 9. Final Act. 12–13 (citing Cookson col. 3, ll. 25–35, col. 6, ll. 6– 11). Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Cookson merely discloses not playing the music if a weak watermark is missing (Cookson, col. 3, lines 23–33), or checking whether the weak watermark is missing (Cookson, col. 6, lines 6–11), not extracting the content identifier from the content according to the pre-determined format.” Br. 21. However, Appellants unpersuasively base their arguments on teachings in Cookson Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 12 that relate to how Cookson’s system responds to a missing weak watermark, rather than to the features of Cookson on which the Examiner relies. In particular, the Examiner relies on Cookson’s use of rules that can be encoded in a watermark and which govern copying. Final Act. 12–13 (citing Cookson col. 3, ll. 25–35, col. 6, ll. 6–11). Specifically, Cookson teaches rules that govern copying that “may be included in the watermark if it is complex (e.g., how many copies may be made, etc.)” (Cookson col. 3, ll. 26–28) and that “anything can be done with [a signal in the clear] in conformance with the watermarks” (id. at col. 6, ll. 7–9 (emphasis added)). As the Examiner correctly notes, “the watermark (and these rules it comprises) must be extracted in order to process it.” Ans. 7. Thus, the Examiner correctly relies on teachings and suggestions in Cookson that relate to when the watermark is present, thus enabling information such as a content identifier to be extracted from the watermark. Appellants’ arguments do not address these particular teachings and suggestions. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner the combination of Wiser, Ram, and Cookson teaches or suggests “extracting the content identifier from the content according to the pre-determined format,” as recited in claim 9. Final Act. 12–13. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 9, and claims 12–14, 23, and 25, which Appellants do not argue separately. Br. 23. Appellants make similar arguments with respect to claims 10, 11, 15, and 24. Br. 23. Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we also sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 10, 11, 15, and 24. Appeal 2013-000253 Application 11/982,885 13 Claim 27 In rejecting claim 27, the Examiner finds it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill “to have embedded the contracts” of Wiser, Ram, and Cookson “as a watermark in a piece of content as taught by Cooperman . . . to increase security by providing more information about the source and distribution rights of a piece of protected content.” Final Act. 23. Appellants argue “the Examiner has not made an explicit analysis on the apparent reason to combine the known elements in the fashion in the claimed invention.” Br. 26. However, Appellants’ conclusory allegations are not responsive to the Examiner’s findings, which set forth a reason for combinability having a rational underpinning, and therefore are not persuasive of Examiner error. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of Wiser, Ram, Cookson, and Cooperman, in the manner recited in claim 27. Final Act. 23. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 27. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–28. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation