Ex Parte Shlissel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2015

10498888 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2015)

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.
10/498,888 03/14/2005 Moshe Shlissel 7251/114445 5416
24628 7590 02/03/2015
Husch Blackwell LLP
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
22ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
JONES, HEATHER RAE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2481
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/03/2015 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 MOSHE SHLISSEL, KEVIN MURRAY, and COLIN DAVIES
_____________

Appeal 2012-007471
Application 10/498,888
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 89, 99 through 101, 111 through 115, 117, 131, 134, 135, 145
through 147, 157 through 161, and 163. Claims 1 through 88 and 180
through 182 have been canceled. Claims 90 through 98, 102 through 110,
116, 118 through 130, 132, 133, 136 through 144, 148 through 156, 162,
and 164 through 179 have been withdrawn from consideration. An oral
hearing was held on January 22, 2015.
We reverse.

Appeal 2012-007471
Application 10/498,888
2

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for processing a packet-based
scrambled stream. Abstract of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 89 is
illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
89. A method for processing a packet-based scrambled
stream, the method comprising:
receiving a plurality of scrambled packets in a packet
stream;
descrambling any of said scrambled packets; and
transmitting a modified packet stream comprising at least
one of said descrambled packets and at least one of said
scrambled packets.

REJECTION AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 89, 99 through 101, 111 through
115, 117, 131, 134, 135, 145 through 147, 157 through 161, and 163 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zdepski (US 6,445,738 B1; Sept. 3,
2002) and Wajs (US 2003/0237089 A1; Dec. 25, 2003). Answer 4–14.
1

ISSUE
Appellants present several arguments on pages 8 through 11 of the
Appeal Brief directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 89,
112, 131, 134, and 158. The issue raised by these arguments, which is
dispositive of the appeal, is: did the Examiner err in finding the
combination of Zdepski and Wajs teaches descrambling some packets of the
Appeal 2012-007471
Application 10/498,888
3

stream of scrambled packets in a received packet stream and transmitting a
modified packet stream comprising at least one of the scrambled packets
that had been received and at least one of the descrambled packets.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of Zdepski and Wajs teaches descrambling some
packets of the stream of scrambled packets in a received packet stream and
transmitting a modified packet stream comprising at least one of the
scrambled packets that had been received and at least one of the
descrambled packets. Each of independent claims 89, 112, 131, 134, and
158, recites limitations directed to a scrambled stream of packets,
descrambling some of the packets, and transmitting a modified packet
stream comprising at least one of a scrambled packet and at least one
descrambled packet. The Examiner finds that Wajs teaches that a video
stream of packets in which some of the packets are descrambled and
forwarded to a decoder. Answer 15. We concur with this finding by the
Examiner. The Examiner further finds that the packets which are not
descrambled merely pass through the signal processor to the decoder. The
Examiner reasons that, since Wajs does not teach that the un-descrambled

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated November 2,
2011, Reply Brief dated March 27, 2012, and the Examiner’s Answer
mailed on January 31, 2012.
Appeal 2012-007471
Application 10/498,888
4

packets are dropped, they are also sent to the decoder. Answer 15. We
disagree with the Examiner’s finding as we do not find it is supported by the
evidence. Specifically, Wajs teaches descrambled content is decoded by the
decoder (see para. 27), and the Examiner has not identified (nor do we find)
a teaching in Wajs that the decoder operates on scrambled packets. Further,
the Examiner has not identified a teaching in Wajs that the descrambled
packets are forwarded to the decoder. Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 89, 99 through 101, 111 through 115, 117,
131, 134, 135, 145 through 147, 157 through 161, and 163.

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 89, 99 through 101, 111
through 115, 117, 131, 134, 135, 145 through 147, 157 through 161, and
163 is reversed.

REVERSED

ELD