Ex Parte Zhou et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 14, 2015

11722003 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 14, 2015)

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.
11/722,003 01/07/2009 Yu Chen Zhou CN920040036US1 5408
75949 7590 01/15/2015
IBM CORPORATION
C/O: VanCott Bagley, Cornwall & McCarthy
36 South State Street
Suite 1900
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
EXAMINER
TRAN, ELLEN C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/15/2015 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 YU CHEN ZHOU, LIN MA, LEI MA, and YI MIN GAN
____________

Appeal 2012-004600
Application 11/722,003
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-004600
Application 11/722,003

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 13–28, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
13. A media streaming apparatus for processing encrypted
media content for distribution among multiple computing
devices, said media streaming apparatus comprising:
a media player for rendering a decrypted media stream
for presentation to a user;
an encryption/decryption module for decrypting a
received encrypted media stream upon request;
a media streaming proxy in communication with said
media player, other media streaming proxies in other of said
multiple computing devices, and said encryption/decryption
module, said media streaming proxy forwarding a received
encrypted media stream to said encryption/decryption module
for decryption and forwarding the decrypted media stream
returned from said encryption/decryption module to the media
player for rendering.

Prior Art
Jagels US 2003/0182429 A1 Sept. 25, 2003
Zeng US 2005/0010963 A1 Jan. 13, 2005
Hartung US 2005/0172127 A1 Aug. 4, 2005
IBM Response to DVB-CPT Call for Proposals for Content Protection
and Copy Management: xCP Cluster Protocol (Oct. 19, 2001) (hereinafter
“xCP”).

Appeal 2012-004600
Application 11/722,003

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 24–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter.
Claims 13 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartung and Zeng.
Claims 14–16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hartung, Zeng, and Jagels.
Claims 18, 20, 24, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over xCP and Hartung.
Claims 19 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over xCP, Hartung, and Jagels.
Claims 22, 23, and 25–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over xCP, Hartung, Jagels, and Zeng.

ANALYSIS
Section 101 rejection of claims 24–28
We sustain the rejection of claims 24–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for
the reasons given by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer.

Section 103 rejections of claims 13–28
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and Examiner’s Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached
by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer for the reasons given by the
Examiner.
We sustain the rejections of claims 13–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.

Appeal 2012-004600
Application 11/722,003

4
DECISION
The rejection of claims 24–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to
non-statutory subject matter is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartung and Zeng is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 14–16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hartung, Zeng, and Jagels is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 18, 20, 24, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over xCP and Hartung is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 19 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over xCP, Hartung, and Jagels is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 22, 23, and 25–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over xCP, Hartung, Jagels, and Zeng 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

mls