Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 201612952792 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation