Ex Parte Spio

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 26, 2010

10412361 (B.P.A.I. May. 26, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MARY A. SPIO
_____________

Appeal 2009-003863
Application 10/412,361
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: May 27, 2010
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, JOHN C. MARTIN,
and KARL EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-003863
Application 10/412,361

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 to 18, and 20 to 29.1 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Appellant’s invention is concerned with a method and apparatus for
providing media programs to a theater for eventual display (Figs. 1A, 1B, 2,
3A, 3B; Spec. 2:24-26 and 3:1-7; Abstract). Media program data (e.g.,
movies, trailers, advertisements, etc.) is transmitted to the theater in
segments from a remote location, along with a map and pointers, and a
“manifest” (i.e., a guide for how to combine the segments) including
“conditional access information” (i.e., information used to decrypt the media
program data or particular movie version). The segments can be selectively
put together using the manifest and a mapping (each segment has an
associated “mapping,” see 404 in Figure 4) in order to provide different
versions of media programs (e.g., versions can be based on moral viability or
ratings such as PG-13 or NC-17) (Spec. 3:1-4:31). Appellant discloses and
claims a method and apparatus which can generate the manifest
incorporating conditional access information so that the manifest is
inalterable by the theater (claims 1 and 14; Spec. 12:29-13:8).

1 Claims 3 and 19 have been canceled.

Appeal 2009-003863
Application 10/412,361

3
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, is representative of
the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of providing media programs to a theater for eventual
display, comprising the steps of:

segmenting media program data collectively describing different
versions of the media program into a plurality of media segments wherein
each media segment includes at least one component associated with one or
more attributes, each having one or more attribute values;

generating a mapping of each attribute value with a pointer to the
component of the segment of the media program having the attribute
associated with the attribute value;

generating conditional access information at least in part from the data
describing the authorized media program version;

generating a manifest, the manifest incorporating the conditional
access information and inalterable by the theater from the mapping and
from data describing an authorized media program version authorized for
display at the theater; and

transmitting the media program data and the manifest to the theater.
(Claim 1 (emphasis added)).
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Wasilewski US 5,420,866 May 30, 1995
Abecassis US 5,610,653 Mar. 11, 1997

The following sole rejection is before us for review:
Claims 1, 2, 4 to 18, and 20 to 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Abecassis and Wasilewski.

Appeal 2009-003863
Application 10/412,361

4
The Examiner relies upon Abecassis as describing the features of an
apparatus and method for providing media programs to a theater for eventual
display including segmenting the media program data and generating a
mapping of attribute values using a pointer (Ans. 3, 4).2 The Examiner
states that Abecassis does not disclose the generation of (i) conditional
access information, or (ii) a manifest including that information and which is
inalterable at the theater from the mapping and the authorized media
program version, as specified claims 1 and 14, and relies upon Wasilewski
as describing these missing features (Ans. 4).
Each of the independent claims on appeal (claims 1 and 14) recites
“generating a manifest, the manifest incorporating the conditional access
information and inalterable by the theater from the mapping and from data
describing an authorized media program version authorized for display at the
theater.”3
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In the

2 We note that the Examiner did not provide page numbers in the Answer
mailed May 13, 2008. We will refer to the Answer using pagination
beginning with page 1. For example, the statement of the claim rejections
starts with paragraph number one, beginning on page 3 of the Answer, and
ends on page 10 where the Response to Argument section begins.
3 Appellant discloses that a version manifest and proper authorization are
needed to “display any versions of the media program” (Spec. 13:3-4), and
that the display entity (e.g., theater) “cannot alter the manifest 502” (Spec.
13:5-6). Appellant’s Figure 4 shows a “mapping” 404 for each segment
406A-F in a media program data 402 using pointers 416. Figure 5A shows a
manifest 502 used for combining segments 406.

Appeal 2009-003863
Application 10/412,361

5
instant case, the Examiner determines that Wasilewski teaches the noted
“generating a manifest . . .” limitation at column 10, lines 13 to 33 (Ans. 4,
7, 10-12). The Examiner determines that the program map table (PMT)
described containing entitlement control messages (ECMs) in Wasilewski
reads on the recitations in claims 1 and 14 of a “manifest” having
“conditional access information” (Ans. 10). Even if Wasilewski’s PMT is
considered to be a manifest, the Examiner has not sufficiently established
that Wasilewski discloses or suggests generating a “manifest” that is
“inalterable by the theater from the mapping”
Wasilewski’s column 10, lines 13 to 33 describes the operation of the
PMT in reassembling the media program using packets IDs and ECMs, but
is silent as to whether or not the PMT (i.e., the manifest as recited in claims
1 and 14) is inalterable. Accordingly, Appellant’s argument (Br. 12) that
Wasilewski does not disclose that the PMT is inalterable is persuasive.
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the obviousness rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4 to 18, and 20 to 29 because (i) the Examiner has not
established a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of obviousness
(see Fine, 837 F.2d at 1073), and (ii) the Examiner’s articulated reasoning
does not possess a rational underpinning to support a legal conclusion of
obviousness. KSR Int’l Co v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).

Appeal 2009-003863
Application 10/412,361

6
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4 to 18, and 20 to
29 is reversed.

REVERSED

KIS

GATES & COOPER, L.L.P.
HOWARD HUGHES CENTER
6701 CENTER DRIVE WEST, SUITE 1050
LOS ANGELES, CA 90045