Ex Parte SutardjaDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 26, 201311700802 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte SEHAT SUTARDJA ____________________ Appeal 2011-005368 Application 11/700,802 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before STEPHEN C. SIU, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, and GREGG I. ANDERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005368 Application 11/700,802 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 53.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Introduction The claims are directed to network systems for secure distributing of protected content. Spec. ¶ [0002]. Claim 1, reproduced below with a disputed limitation in italics, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A network device, comprising: a content requesting interface for adding desired selected content to a queue associated with a remote content provider; memory that stores received selected content that is received from the remote content provider; and a network interface that: provides storage status data relating to the received selected content stored in the memory to the remote content provider; receives additional ones of the desired selected content in the queue from the remote content provider based on the storage status data of the received selected content in the memory; and stores the desired selected content received from the remote content provider as the received selected content in the memory, wherein the storage status data includes a hidden status and at least one of an erased status and an amount of the received selected content stored in the memory. 1 Throughout the decision, we refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed Sep. 2, 2010), and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Jan. 28, 2011), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Nov. 29, 2010). 2 The Real Party in Interest is Marvell World Trade Ltd. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2011-005368 Application 11/700,802 3 Rejections The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-53 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Routtenberg (U.S. 2002/0049717 A1, Apr. 25, 2002). Ans. 3- 12; see Final Rej. (filed Apr. 2, 2010) (noting rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) for claims 1-53). ANALYSIS Appellant’s Appeal Brief raises the following issue with respect to claim 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Routtenberg discloses “a network interface . . . wherein the storage status data includes a hidden status”? Appellant argues that “Routtenberg does not disclose a network interface that provides storage status data with a hidden status to a remote content provider.” App. Br. 11. Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in finding that “hidden data” was data that is not accessible to the user. App. Br. 13. Appellant contends that regardless of construction, Routtenberg does not disclose that the files stored in the content storage device are either user accessible or are deleted. Id. Appellant argues that the “three different encoding levels of Routtenberg [relied on by the Examiner] refer to the methods used to encode files transferred from the . . . server . . . to the content storage device.” Reply Br. 6. Furthermore, Appellant asserts that “[n]one of the three encoding levels indicate whether a received and stored file is accessible or not accessible,” because the files delivered in Routtenberg to local storage are user accessible. Reply Br. 6, 7. Appeal 2011-005368 Application 11/700,802 4 The Examiner answers that the hidden status as claimed refers to “data that is not accessible by the user.” Ans. 13. The Examiner found that Routtenberg discloses three access levels, the second level of which includes that the files are available to the user for a predetermined number of times or predetermined time duration. Ans. 13-14 (citing Routtenberg, ¶¶ [0035], [0040]). The Examiner found that his limited access based on times accessed or time duration means that the files in Routtenberg are inaccessible. Id. Having reviewed Appellant’s arguments, we are not persuaded by the Examiner’s findings that Routtenberg discloses the hidden status as cited in claim 1. The Examiner construes hidden status as data that is not accessible by the user citing Appellant’s Specification, ¶ [0106] (Ans. 13), but has not persuasively shown that Routtenberg discloses that the content as downloaded is inaccessible to the user. Although portions of Appellant’s Specification indicates that delivered hidden status data “is not initially accessible (e.g. visible and/or useable)” (Specification, ¶ [0147]) or user accessible (Spec,¶ [0106]), Routtenberg teaches that the delivered content has limited access or access limitations but does not disclose that the content files are inaccessible. See Routtenberg, ¶¶ [0035], [0040] For a prior art reference to serve as an anticipatory reference, it must disclose every limitation of the claimed invention, either explicitly or inherently. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477(Fed. Cir. 1997). The Examiner has not shown that the limited access file encoding disclosed in Routtenberg, ¶¶ [0035] and [0040], equates to content that is inaccessible to the user as recited in claim 1. Independent claims 18 and 35 include similar limitations to those discussed above with respect to claim 1. App. Br. 13-14. Thus, we do not Appeal 2011-005368 Application 11/700,802 5 sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 18 and 35 and dependent claims 2-17, 19-34, and 36-53 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). As this issue is dispositive, we need not reach the remaining issues in Appellant’s Appeal Brief. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-53 is REVERSED. REVERSED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation