Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 5, 2016

12952792 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/952,792 11/23/2010 Jiang Zhang
124177 7590 05/09/2016
Fox Rothschild LLP
997 Lenox Drive
Building 3
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
106751.00141 2368
EXAMINER
BELL, KALISH K
Lawrenceville, NJ 08648-2311 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2435
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/09/2016 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address( es):
ipdocket@foxrothschild.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIANG ZHANG, PAUL MORONEY,
and PETR PETERKA
Appeal2014-007442
Application 12/952,792 1
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Motorola Mobility
LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-007442
Application 12/952,792
Invention
The claims are directed to unlocking content using cryptographic keys
and encrypted traffic keys if a received device registration server certificate
ID (DRSCID) matches a stored DRSCID. Abstract.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A method for a client device to obtain authorized access to
content delivered over a content delivery network, comprising:
receiving an entitlement management message (EMM),
said EMM including at least one cryptographic key and a device
registration server certificate ID (DRSCID) identifYing a
currently valid device registration server (DRS) public key
certificate;
comparing the DRSCID obtained from the EMM to a
stored DRSCID value;
receiving an entitlement control message (ECM), wherein
the ECM includes an encrypted traffic key for decrypting
content; and
if the DRSCID obtained from the EMM is determined to
match the stored DRSCID,
decrypting the traffic key with the cryptographic key or a
key derived from the cryptographic key to thereby access the
content.
Applied Prior Art
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Candelore
Moroney et al.
US 2005/0063541 Al
US 2009/0285401 Al
2
Mar. 24, 2005
Nov. 19, 2009
Appeal2014-007442
Application 12/952,792
Grajek et al.
Saga
US 2009/0307486 Al
US 2010/0180290 Al
REJECTIONS2
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Dec. 10, 2009
July 15, 2010
Claims 1-10 and 13-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Moroney, Saga, and Grajek. Final Act. 6-25.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Moroney, Saga, Grajek, and Candelore. Id. at 25-26.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the Examiner improperly combined Moroney, Saga,
and Grajek to reject independent claims 1, 15, and 20. App. Br. 5-9; Reply
Br. 5-7. Specifically, Appellants argue "one skilled in the art would have no
motivation to modify Moroney to include the device ID features of Saga"
because
the device ID features of Saga are specifically disclosed for
reducing the time required to playback previously recorded
content. These features have no applicability to the system of
Moroney, which is directed to providing access to subscription
content by subscriber devices. Moroney does not address
playback of previously accessed and recorded content.
App. Br. 6 (citing Saga i-fi-f 17, 66; Moroney i-f 13). That is, Appellants argue
there is no motivation to combine Moroney and Saga because Saga is
directed to the playback of recorded content but Moroney is not. Id.
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. Adv. Act. 2.
3
Appeal2014-007442
Application 12/952,792
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Moroney
teaches a playback device which accesses content using a decrypted traffic
key. Final Act. 7 (citing Moroney i-fi-141--44; Fig. 4). Moroney's traffic key
is received in an entitlement control message (ECM) and decrypted using a
service key received in an entitlement management message (EMM). Id.
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Saga teaches a playback device
which provides quick access to previously recorded content using a
decrypted work key when a device ID received in an EMM matches a stored
device ID. Id. at 7-8 (citing Saga i-fi-157, 61-65, 91, Fig. 3). The Examiner
combines Moroney and Saga in order to incorporate Saga's playback of
previously stored content into Moroney' s playback device (Ans. 8) and in
order to reduce the time it takes for Moroney to acquire keys (Final Act. 8
(citing Saga i-f 16); Adv. Act. 2).
Appellants' argument, that Moroney is not directed to playback of
recorded content (App. Br. 6-7), does not persuade us that the Examiner's
reasoning for the combination is improper. The Examiner's reasons for the
combination are supported by rational underpinnings, i.e., to add features to
a device and to improve the device's operation. Ans. 8; Final Act. 8; Adv.
Act. 2. Appellants' argument does not persuade us that adding features to or
improving the operation of a playback device is an unreasonable rationale
for the combination.
Additionally, Appellants argue the combination of Moroney, Saga,
and Grajek is improper because the combination results in a "system [which]
would not function." App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue
[i]f the device ID of the Saga EMMs (which identif[y] the
rece1vmg apparatus to which the EMM is addressed) were
replaced by the [device registration server certificate
4
Appeal2014-007442
Application 12/952,792
Id.
identification (DRSCID)] of Grajek (which identifies a server
certificate), then the receiving apparatuses of Saga would have
no way to identify EMMs addressed to them.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner relies on
Moroney to teach the receipt of EMMs by playback devices (Final Act. 7
(citing Moroney i-f 43, Fig. 4)). Appellants' argument regarding Saga's use
of device IDs to receive EMMs is not persuasive because the Examiner
relies on Moroney to teach the receipt of EMMs. Id. at 7.
Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner's "rationale for
combining Moroney, Saga, and Grajeck is improper." Reply Br. 5.
Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner replaces Saga's device ID with
Grajeck's DRSCID on the premise that Saga's device ID is used to
determine a cryptographic key, but "the device ID of Saga is not used to
determine an applicable cryptographic key." Id. (citing Saga i-fi-18, 64).
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner's
combination of Moroney and Saga teaches a playback device which
compares a received device ID with a stored device ID and decrypts content
if the device IDs match. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Grajeck
teaches comparing a received DSRCID with a stored DRSCID to verify the
received DRSCID. Final Act. 9. The Examiner combines Moroney, Saga,
and Grajeck in order to identify clients and servers and in order to prevent
man-in-the-middle attacks by verifying DRSCIDs. Id. at 10 (citing Grajeck
,-r,-r 7' 43).
Appellants' argument focuses on whether or not Saga's device ID
determines a key, but does not persuasively address why the Examiner's
stated rationale for the combination is improper. Reply Br. 5 (citing Saga
5
Appeal2014-007442
Application 12/952,792
iii! 8, 64). The Examiner's reasons for the combination are supported by
rational underpinnings, i.e., to verify clients and servers and provide network
security. Final Act. 10 (citing Grajeck iii! 7, 43). Appellants' argument that
Saga's device ID does not determine a cryptographic key fails to address the
motivation found by the Examiner (providing network security).
Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner "impermissibly uses
hindsight to combine Moroney, Saga and Grajek" because "[r]eplacing
[Saga's] device ID of an EMM with the DRSCID of Grajek would defeat
[Saga's] purpose as the Saga system cannot identify a receiving apparatus
using a DRSCID of Grajek." Reply Br. 6.
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner relies on
Moroney, not Saga, to teach the receipt of EMMs by playback devices (Final
Act. 7 (citing Moroney if 43; Fig. 4)), and Appellants' arguments regarding
Saga's use of device IDs to identify recipient playback devices do not
address the Examiner's stated combination. Moreoever, as discussed supra,
we find the Examiner's combination of Moroney, Saga and Grajek has
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning, i.e., verification of clients
and servers and prevention of network security attacks. Final Act. 10 (citing
Grajeck iii! 7, 43). Because we find the Examiner's rationale for the
combination is reasonable, Appellants' argument directed to the
combination's suitability for Saga's intended purpose does not persuade us
that one of ordinary skill in the art would only combine Moroney, Saga and
Grajek using impermissible hindsight based on the Appellants' claims and
specification.
6
Appeal2014-007442
Application 12/952,792
Accordingly, for the reasons stated above, we are not persuaded the
Examiner improperly combined Moroney, Saga and Grajek in rejecting
claims 1, 15, and 20.
Appellants have not presented persuasive arguments with respect to
dependent claims 2-14, 16-19, 21, and 22. See App. Br. 9. For the reasons
set forth above, therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting these claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37
to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish
for individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejections of dependent claims 2-14, 16-19, 21, and 22. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-22.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv) (2009).
AFFIRMED
7