Ex Parte Tsuria

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 18, 2014

10471380 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 18, 2014)

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.
10/471,380 10/07/2003 Yossi Tsuria 7251/90564 9814
24628 7590 02/18/2014
Husch Blackwell LLP
Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz
120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA
22ND FLOOR
CHICAGO, IL 60606
EXAMINER
LANGHNOJA, KUNAL N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2014 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 YOSSI TSURIA
____________

Appeal 2011-012875
Application 10/471,380
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-012875
Application 10/471,380

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 23, 24, 28, 31, 33, 35, and 45-50, which are all the claims
remaining in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
Claim 23. A method of anonymously ordering a desired pay-per view
item from a headend via an anonymizing intermediary in a pay-per-view
item system in which a removable security element is used for authorizing
utilization of the desired pay-per-view item in a set-top box (STB), the set-
top box and the anonymizing intermediary being located in different
locations, the removable security element being removed from the STB and
placed in removable operative association with the anonymizing
intermediary during the ordering, the removable security element being
placed in removable operative association with the STB after the ordering,
the ordering method comprising the removable security element performing:

generating a random or pseudo-random disguising number for
association only with the particular anonymous ordering of the desired pay-
per-view item;

sending an authorization request including the disguising number to
the anonymizing intermediary;

receiving, from the anonymizing intermediary, disguised
authorization information for authorizing utilization of the desired pay-per-
view item, the authorization information being disguised with the disguising
number; and

reversing disguising of the disguised authorization information in
order to obtain the authorization information.

Appeal 2011-012875
Application 10/471,380

3
Prior Art
Spies US 6,055,314 Apr. 25, 2000
Peled US 2002/0116337 A1 Aug. 22, 2002
Pathmasuntharan US 6,955,299 B1 Oct. 18, 2005

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 23, 24, 28, 31, 33, 35, and 45-50 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spies, Peled, and
Pathmasuntharan.

ANALYSIS
Appellant contends none of the references teach the claimed random
disguising number that is unique to a particular transaction. App. Br. 5-7;
Reply Br. 2-4. Appellant’s contention is inconsistent with the symmetric
encryption key that is unique to a particular transaction as taught by Spies.
Col. 6, l. 41 to col. 7, l. 57; col. 12, ll. 22-41; col. 15, l. 43 to col. 16, l. 18.
The integrated circuit (IC) card generates the symmetric key, or “random or
pseudo-random disguising number for association only with the particular
anonymous ordering,” and sends the disguising number along with an
authorization request to a merchant. Col. 7, ll. 41-67. The merchant sends
an encrypted policy and program key, or “disguised authorization
information,” to the IC card, which then reverse disguises the disguised
information. Col. 8, ll. 26-49. Although Spies disguises the policy and
program key using the public exchange key, Spies suggests disguising the
public and program key according to techniques performed at the IC card,
which include using the symmetric key for disguising information. Col. 8,
ll. 50-57.
Appeal 2011-012875
Application 10/471,380

4
Disguising the public and program key as taught by Spies using the
symmetric key of Spies represents the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods that does no more than yield the predictable
result of authorization information disguised with a random number
associated only with a particular transaction. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Appellant has not provided persuasive
evidence or argument to show that encrypting the authorization information
of Spies with the random symmetric key of Spies was “uniquely challenging
or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418).
Appellant contends the Examiner has not provided an adequate reason
to include a random number as taught by Pathmasuntharan with the
combination of Spies and Peled. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4-6. Appellant’s
contention is inconsistent with the random symmetric key taught by Spies in
columns 6-8, 12, 15, and 16. Because Spies teaches the random disguising
number, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Spies, Peled,
and Pathmasuntharan teaches generating a random disguising number for a
particular order of a desired pay-per-view item.
We sustain the rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant does not provide arguments for separate patentability of claims
24, 28, 31, 33, 35, and 45-50, which fall with claim 23.

Appeal 2011-012875
Application 10/471,380

5
DECISION
The rejection of claims 23, 24, 28, 31, 33, 35, and 45-50 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Spies, Peled, and
Pathmasuntharan 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

kis