Ex Parte Sugahara

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 8, 2015

12249208 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 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.
12/249,208 10/10/2008 Takayuki SUGAHARA JVC.031.0007.CN 1289
65181 7590 09/08/2015
MOTS LAW, PLLC
1629 K STREET N.W.
SUITE 200
WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1635
EXAMINER
LEE, Y YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2485
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/08/2015 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 TAKAYUKI SUGAHARA
_____________

Appeal 2013-005284
Application 12/249,208
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JON M. JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 3, 5, and 6.
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a method of reproducing data which
allows for the degree of restriction of reproduction to be conveyed along
with the data being reproduced. See Appellant’s Specification 3 (Summary
of the Invention).

Appeal 2013-005284
Application 12/249,208

2

Claim 3 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
3. A reproduction method providing reproduction protection
in a reproduction apparatus, for operating on main data which
are conveyed by a broadcasting system, said method
comprising steps of:
detecting medium protection data conveyed by said
broadcasting system, wherein said medium protection data are
one of a first data group,
specifying first protect information as a first plurality of
protection levels in response to said medium protection data
and first apparatus protection data, wherein said first apparatus
protection data being stored in said reproduction apparatus are
one of a second data group and are specific to a region or a
country,
specifying second apparatus protection data by user
selection from a second plurality of protection levels,
generating second protect information by referring to at
least said first protect information and said second apparatus
protection data, and
executing reproduction of said main data in accordance
with said second protect information,
wherein each member of said first plurality of protection
levels corresponds with a respective member of said second
plurality of protection levels.

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cookson (US 5,574,567, Nov. 12, 1996) and
Abecassis (US 5,434,678, July 18, 1995). Answer 4–6.1

1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed November 8,
2012, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on December 5, 2012.
Appeal 2013-005284
Application 12/249,208

3

ISSUES
Appellant argues, on pages 13 through 16 of the Appeal Brief, that the
Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 3 is in error. These arguments
present us with the issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cookson and
Abecassis teaches a two-step process for obtaining a second
protect information through a second apparatus protection data?
b) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Cookson and
Abecassis teaches each member of said first plurality of protection
levels corresponds with a respective member of said second
plurality of protection levels?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We disagree with
Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 5, and
6.
The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each of
Appellant’s arguments identifying disclosures in each of the references to
support the findings that the disputed limitations are taught by the prior art.
Answer 6 and 7. We have reviewed the evidence cited by the Examiner.
We concur with each of the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own.
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred in rejecting 3, 5, and 6. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejections.
Appeal 2013-005284
Application 12/249,208

4

DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 3, 5, and 6 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc