Ex Parte Sherwood et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

11729689 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111729,689 03/28/2007
7590 02/29/2016
Packet Video Corp,
10350 Science Center Drive
San Diego, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Greg Sherwood
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.
PVC-P-07-005 6114
EXAMINER
MANGIALASCHI, TRACY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2668
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/29/2016 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 GREG SHERWOOD, GIRI ANANTHARAMAN,
and RALPH NEFF
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1, 4--11, 13, 14, 22, 23, 26, 29-33, and 38--44. Claims 2, 3, 12, 15-21, 24,
25, 27, 28, and 34--37 have been canceled in this patent application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
The claims are directed to a system and method for securing content
ratings. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A system for securing a content rating associated with a
multimedia file, the system comprising:
a media provider connected to a network by a first
terminal;
a rating authority which provides the content rating
wherein the rating authority applies a digital signature to the
content rating to produce a digital certificate associated with the
content rating and further wherein the digital certificate certifies
that the rating authority provides the content rating wherein the
rating authority is a different entity than the media provider;
a first database connected to the first terminal wherein
the first database stores the multimedia file:
a condensed form of the multimedia file: and
a second terminal connected to the network wherein the
media provider transmits the multimedia file to the second
terminal using the first terminal and further wherein the second
terminal receives an encoded version of the content rating and
the condensed form of the multimedia file from the rating
authority via the network without involvement of the media
provider wherein the encoded version of the content rating is
transmitted with the condensed form of the multimedia file
wherein the encoded version of the content rating has the digital
certificate and further wherein the second terminal uses the
digital certificate to verify that the content rating was not
modified after application of the digital signature by the rating
authority.
2
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ohkado et al.
Holm et al.
Van Den Heuvel et al.
Peterka et al.
Plastina et al.
US 2003/0188150 Al
US 2005/006597 6 Al
US 2006/0047952 Al
US 2006/0050701 Al
US 2006/0288041 Al
Oct. 2, 2003
Mar. 24, 2005
Mar. 2, 2006
Mar. 9, 2006
Dec. 21, 2006
T. Reti, et al., DiMaS: System for Multimedia Producers to Distribute
Semantic Content on Peer-to-Peer File Sharing Networks, Published in the
Proceedings of Intellectual Property Beyond Rights Conference, Espoo,
Finland, October 2004, reproduced in Digital Economy Core Project (DE
Core): Structures of Mobile Digital Economy, Final Report, December 2004,
(hereinafter, "Reti").
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 4--10, 26, 29, 30, 31, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ohkado in view of Peterka and further
in view of Van Den Heuvel.
Claims 11, 13, 14, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ohkado in view of Plastina and further in view of
Holm.
Claims 32 and 40-44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ohkado in view of Peterka in view of Van Den Heuvel
and further in view of Reti.
ANALYSIS
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and adopt
as our own ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
3
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3--45; Ans. 3-50), and (2)
the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response
to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 51- 68). We highlight and amplify
certain teachings and suggestions of the references, as well as certain of
Appellants' arguments as follows. We address Appellants' arguments in the
order set forth in the Appeal Brief.
Claims 1, 4--10, 26, 29, 30, 31, and 33
Claim 1
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants
contend "Claim 1 requires a rating authority that is separate and independent
from the media provider." (App. Br. 19). Appellants further contend
"Claim 1 requires the condensed form of media file to be sent by the rating
authority, together with the content rating, without involvement of the media
provider." (App. Br. 19). Additionally, Appellants contend:
As set forth above, Claim 1 requires that the rating
authority is a different entity than the media provider. On
pages 6 and 7 of the Office Action, the Examiner asserts that
paragraph [0020] of Peterka et al. discloses this requirement of
Claim 1. The content distribution system 100 includes a
program information server 102 and a content streaming server
104. The program information stream includes a stream of
session description messages that include information related to
the content being delivered by the content streaming server 104.
However, these servers are not separate entities, but instead are
intertwined servers in the same entity. Peterka et al. fail to
teach or suggest a rating authority which generates content
ratings separate from a content provider which provides the
content. There is no teaching in Peterka et al. that the rating
authority is a different entity than the media provider as Claim
1 explicitly requires.
4
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
(App. Br. 19-20). Appellants contend the prior art references do not
teach the claimed:
a second terminal connected to the network wherein the
media provider transmits the multimedia file to the second
terminal using the first terminal and further wherein the second
terminal receives an encoded version of the content rating and
the condensed form of the multimedia file from the rating
authority via the network without involvement of the media
provider wherein the encoded version of the content rating is
transmitted with the condensed form of the multimedia file
wherein the encoded version of the content rating has the digital
certificate and further wherein the second terminal uses the
digital certificate to verify that the content rating was not
modified after application of the digital signature by the rating
authority.
(Claim 1 ).
Appellants do not identify any express definition of "without
involvement of the media provider" or an express definition of "different
entity" or "separate entities" as proffered in Appellants' argument. From
our review of Appellants' Specification, we find Appellants' Specification
merely identifies the rating authority as an "entity" at page 16 without any
other identification of "different" or "separate" with regards to any of the
other claimed elements.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Ohkado and
Peterka references do not teach a separate rating authority. (App. Br. 19-
21 ). In the Answer, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Ohkado teaches in
paragraphs 15 and 16 that it is desirable for the content provider creating the
content to be a separate party from the content provider that rates and
guarantees the content. (Ans. 51-52; see also Ohkado Figure 1 (separate
content creator lOA and content rater 30A). Ohkado thus teaches "wherein
5
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
the rating authority is a different entity than the media provider," as recited
in claim 1. As a result, we find Appellants' argument unpersuasive of error
in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 1.
Furthermore, the Examiner maintains that the Peterka reference also
teaches a separate rating authority from the content streaming server that
provides content to the client. (See Ans. 52-53 (citing Peterka Fig. 1, mJ 14,
20-21)). We agree with the Examiner that Peterka's Figure 1 shows
program information server 102 separate from streaming server 104. The
Examiner identifies paragraphs 20 and 21 describing the session description
messages sent by the program information server, and which may include
content rating data. (Ans. 51-53). We agree with the Examiner's finding,
and that the separate servers taught in Peterka suggest the media provider
and rating authority are separate entities.
Appellants further contend that the condensed form of the media file
is attached to the content itself in the Ohkado reference rather than separate
from the media provider. (App. Br. 21-22). Appellants further contend that
separation "enables rating authorities to be independent and not require a
relationship with the content provider." (App. Br. 22). Appellants'
argument is not commensurate in scope with the express language for the
system of independent claim 1, which does not exclude any relationship
between the separate entities. Additionally, we note Ohkado similarly
highlights the importance of an independent rating authority in teaching that
encryption of the ratings prevents the content provider from altering them.
(Ohkado ii 17).
Appellants contend column 9, lines 2-14, of Peterka teach "the
information sent out by the program information server102 (the alleged
6
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
rating authority) is actually generated and provided by the streaming server
104 (the alleged media provider)." (App. Br. 20). Appellants' citation to
column 9, lines 2-14, of Peterka appears to refer to a portion of Peterka's
claim 15, which recites, among other things, "generating session description
messages for the at least one multicast stream of digital content" and
"multicasting the session description messages to the client devices using a
predefined multicast address." Appellants do not explain why generating the
session description messages requires that they be generated and provided
by the streaming server, particularly in light of Peterka's paragraph 20,
which provides that "program information server 102 initiates a multicast
secure session to deliver a program information stream to the client
devices." We agree with the Examiner the separate servers in Peterka teach
sending the content rating "without involvement of the media provider," as
recited in claim 1. (See Ans. 56-57).
Furthermore, Appellants argue the condensed form of the media file
in Ohkado is attached to the media file, and thus is not sent with the content
rating "without involvement of the media provider." Appellants contend:
Ohkado et al. provide a hash "Ho" computed over the media
content itself that is essentially a fingerprint of the media.
However, in all of the scenarios in Ohkado et al, the alleged
condensed version of the media file (namely, the hash "Ho"),
Ohkado et al. is attached directly to the media file within the
authentication mark. Thus, the hash Ho is delivered from the
content provider and is attached to the content itself. Ohkado et
al. fail to disclose or suggest a condensed form of the media file
sent from the rating authority via the network without the
involvement of the media provider. Appellants submit that this
feature of Claim 1 is a stated advantage of the present
7
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
invention, since it enables rating authorities to be independent
and not require a relationship with the content provider.
Further, Peterka et al. fail to teach, suggest or mention a
condensed form of the media content. Contrary to the assertions
of the Examiner, the session description messages are not a
condensed form of the media content. Peterka et al. simply fail
to disclose a condensed form of the media content.
(App. Br. 21-22).
The Examiner maintains the Ohkado reference teaches and
fairly suggests the use of a condensed form of the multimedia files.
(Ans. 53-58). We agree with the Examiner's interpretation of
Ohkado' s hash as a condensed form of the media file, and find no
express definition identified by Appellants to show error in the
Examiner's mapping of the prior art teachings. As to Appellants'
argument that Ohkado' s hash is attached to the media file and
delivered with it, the Examiner relies on Peterka for sending the media
file from a different entity. (Ans. 56-57). We agree with the
Examiner's findings that the combined teachings of the references
teach the disputed limitations.
Appellants further maintain that the Examiner's motivation for the
combination is in error. (App. Br. 22-23). Appellants' specific arguments,
however, relate only to whether individual prior art references teach or
suggest that the second terminal receives an encoded version of the content
rating and a condensed form of the multimedia file from the rating authority
via the network without involvement of the media provider as required by
Claim 1. (See App. Br. 23-27). We disagree with Appellants, as discussed
above.
The Examiner further maintains:
8
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
Ohkado, Peterka and Van den Heuvel are concerned with
verifying and authenticating multimedia and related multimedia
data (Ohkado, paragraph 0002, the present system provides a
media authentication and watermark system; Peterka,
paragraph 0025, the session description messages are
authenticated before use by the client devices 112; Van Den
Heuvel, paragraph 0001, The invention relates to a method of
providing data integrity authentication and data protection, in
which a set of data fragments is protected by a signature). Thus,
one skilled in the art would clearly recognize that Ohkado,
Peterka and Van den Heuvel each provide an integral piece of
authenticating multimedia and related multimedia data to
ensure the integrity of the multimedia data for the user.
(Ans. 58). We agree with the Examiner regarding the combination of
references and find Appellants' arguments have not shown error in the
Examiner's reasoned conclusion of obviousness of independent claim
1.
We note Appellants did not file a Reply Brief in response to the
factual findings and legal conclusions in the Examiner's Answer, and
we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
Claim 4--10, 29, 31, 31, and 33
With respect to dependent claims 4--10, Appellants rely upon the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1 and generally
contend that the Examiner has relied upon improper hindsight reconstruction
in the rejection. (App. Br. 28).
Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See 3 7
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(vii) ("A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim."). Merely alleging that the references fail to support a rejection is
insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. Attorney arguments and
9
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual evidence are entitled
to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir.
1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984); Ex
parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7-8 (BP AI Aug. 10, 2009)
(informative), available at http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/
its/fd09004693.pdf.
Here, we find Appellants' arguments are conclusory in nature and fail
to address the thrust of the Examiner's obviousness rejections. We find
Appellants' argument does not rise to the level of a specific argument for
patentability, and we group claims 4--10, 29, 31, 31, and 33 as falling with
their respective independent claims.
Claim 26
With respect to independent method claim 26, Appellants set forth
similar arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1. (App. Br.
30- 36). As discussed above, we find Appellants' arguments fail to show
error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Appellants further
contend:
Claim 26 also requires that the rating authority is a
different entity than the media provider. On page 16 of the
Office Action, the Examiner asserts that paragraph [0020] of
Peterka et al. discloses this requirement of Claim 26. The
content distribution system 100 includes a program information
server 102 and a content streaming server 104. The program
information stream includes a stream of session description
messages that include information related to the content being
delivered by the content streaming server 104. However, these
servers are not separate entities, but instead are intertwined
servers in the same entity. Peterka et al. fail to teach or suggest
a rating authority which generates content ratings separate from
10
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
a content provider which provides the content. There is no
teaching in Peterka et al. that the rating authority is a different
entity than the media provider as Claim 26 explicitly requires.
(App. Br. 36-37 (emphases omitted)).
As discussed above, the Examiner addresses the "different entity."
(Ans. 51 ). We further note that Appellants have not identified any express
definition of "different entity" and have not identified any express support
with which to differentiate the context of the claimed limitation from that
shown by the Examiner in the combination of prior art references. As a
result, we find Appellants' argument unavailing.
Appellants further contend that "the Examiner is merely 'piece-
mealing' references together, providing various teachings and positively
defined limitations of Appellants' method to deprecate the claimed
invention. Of course, hindsight reconstruction of Appellants' invention is
impermissible." (App. Br. 41--42). We find the Examiner has set forth a
reasoned conclusion of obviousness based upon factual findings supported
by the cited prior art. Consequently, Appellants' arguments have not shown
error in the Examiner's reasoned conclusion of obviousness of independent
claim 26.
Claims 29-31 and 33
With respect to claims 29-31 and 33, Appellants set forth a general
argument for patentability regarding the Examiner is "piece-mealing"
references together. (App. Br. 42--44). As discussed above, we find
Appellants' argument to be a general argument for patentability and is
unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. We
group these claims as falling with their parent, independent claim 26.
11
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
Claims 11, 13, 14, 22, and 23
Claim 11
With respect to independent claim 11, Appellants set forth the
language of the claim (App. Br. 44--47) and argue that the combination does
not teach or suggest the claimed:
the rating authority associates the first user rating information
and the second user rating information with the multimedia file
based on the content fingerprint. The rating authority combines
at least the first user rating information and the second user
rating information to produce an aggregate rating associated
with the multimedia file. The rating authority distributes the
aggregate rating. The rating authority has not received and has
not accessed the multimedia file before the rating authority
distributes the aggregate rating.
(App. Br. 47--48).
Appellants further contend claim 11 requires "aggregating user ratings
based on the content fingerprint; which requires no cooperation from the
content provider, and which does not even require the rating authority to
have seen or accessed the content before receiving user ratings." (App. Br.
48). Appellants further contend that the Plastina reference does not show
how the aggregate or community rating is generated. (App. Br. 48--49).
The Examiner further clarifies the community rating is taught and
suggested by the Holm reference. (Ans. 58---61). The Examiner further
discusses the limitation "wherein the rating authority combines at least the
first user rating information and the second user rating information to
produce an aggregate rating associated with the multimedia file; wherein the
rating authority has not received and has not accessed the multimedia file
before the rating authority distributes the aggregate rating." (Ans. 61---63).
12
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
Appellants contend the prior art references do not teach or suggest the
claimed "wherein the rating authority has not received and has
not accessed the multimedia file before the rating authority distributes the
aggregate rating," (App. Br. 48). The Examiner responds to Appellants'
argument and identifies that the Plastina reference does not detail or limit
whether the multimedia files were received or accessed.
The Examiner concludes that the combination of references would
have taught or suggested that claimed limitation. We agree with the
Examiner and find that Appellants have not identified anything uniquely
challenging or difficult in the combination. We also find that it would have
been well within the skill of one skilled in the art to combine such known
techniques to utilize the teachings of the combination of references. See
KSR Int 'l 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" (citations omitted)). We are not persuaded that combining the
respective familiar elements of the cited references in the manner proffered
by the Examiner would have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one
of ordinary skill in the art" at the time of Appellants' invention. Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Appellants further contend that "Claim 11 requires aggregating user
ratings based on the content fingerprint, which requires no cooperation from
the content provider, and which does not even require the rating authority to
have seen or accessed the content before receiving user ratings." (App. Br.
13
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
48). We note Appellants' argument is not commensurate in scope with the
express language of independent claim 11 and does not show error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness. Appellants also contend that the
Examiner is merely "piece-mealing" the references. (App. Br. 50).
The Examiner further discusses the combination of references with
respect to the claimed invention recited in independent claim 11. (Ans. 59-
65). We agree with the Examiner that Appellants' arguments do not show
error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 11.
We note that Appellants' have not filed a Reply Brief to respond to
the Examiner's further clarifications of the application of the prior art
references to the claimed invention. Consequently, we accept the
Examiner's reasonable findings and explanations, and Appellants'
arguments have not shown error in the Examiner's reasoned conclusion of
obviousness of independent claim 11.
Claims 13, 14, 22, and 23
With respect to claims 13, 14, 22, and 23, Appellants set forth general
arguments for patentability and argue the combination of references as
discussed above. (App. Br. 51-53). As discussed above, we find
Appellants' general argument to not be a specific argument for patentability,
and claims 13, 14, 22, and 23 are grouped as falling with their respective
parent claim 11.
14
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
Claims 32 and 40-44
Claim 32
With respect to independent claim 32, Appellants repeat the language
of the claim and generally maintain that the prior art does not teach the
claimed invention and again contend that the Examiner is "piece-mealing"
the references together. (App. Br. 53-57). The Examiner sets forth that the
arguments regarding the claimed "without involvement of the media
provider" have been addressed with respect to independent claims 1 and 26.
(Ans. 66). The Examiner further responds to Appellants' arguments
regarding the combination. (Ans. 65----67). We agree with the Examiner and
find Appellants' general argument to be unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 32.
Claims 40-44
With respect to dependent claims 40-44, Appellants repeat the
language of the claim 40 and briefly discuss the additional teachings of the
Reti reference and maintains that the Reti reference does not remedy the
deficiency in the base combination. (App. Br. 57----60). The Examiner
addresses Appellants' arguments in the Response to Arguments section, and
the Examiner further responds to Appellants' arguments regarding the
combination. (Ans. 65----67). We agree with the Examiner and find
Appellants' arguments do not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness for the reasons discussed above.
15
Appeal2014-000074
Application 11/729,689
Claims 38 and 39
With respect to claims 38 and 39, Appellants repeat the language of
both claims and the Examiner's rejection, and Appellants set forth a general
argument regarding the combination with respect to parent independent
claim 26. (App. Br. 60-64). The Examiner responds to the general
combination argument. (Ans. 67---68). We find Appellants' general
argument to not show error in the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness,
and we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 38 and 39.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4--11, 13, 14, 22, 23,
26, 29-33, and 38--44 based upon obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 4--11,
13, 14, 22, 23, 26, 29-33, and 38--44 are sustained.
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
16