Ex Parte SUGAHARADownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 8, 201512249208 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation