John I. Okimoto et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 10, 2019

13305958 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 10, 2019)

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.
13/305,958 11/29/2011 John I. Okimoto CS38212 9414
43471 7590 10/10/2019
ARRIS Enterprises, LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
EXAMINER
CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/10/2019 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):
arris.docketing@arris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN I. OKIMOTO, ALEXANDER MEDVINSKY, and
XIN QIU
Appeal 2018-001374
Application 13/305,958
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–22, which are all of the pending
claims. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as ARRIS
Technology, Inc. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2018-001374
Application 13/305,958
2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant’s Specification, the claimed invention is
directed to regionalizing a digital content consumption device, such as a
television set-top box. Spec. 1. In particular, the Specification describes a
“digital media network” in which television sets use “digital content
consumption devices” (e.g., set-top boxes) to allow conditional access to
broadcast content. See id. The Specification further describes that access to
certain content may be conditioned on the set-top box being in a particular
region. See id. at 2–3. The conditional access is secured, for example, by
use of public key encryption, in which a public key message is “customized
for each region.” Id. at 3. An updated public key may be sent to the set-top
box in a public key message that contains the encrypted key as well as a
region descriptor; the set-top box uses the region descriptor to determine a
secret key that is then used to decrypt the encrypted key. Id. at 10.
Claims 1, 11, and 21 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for key-based decryption, the method
comprising:
receiving, in a digital content consumption device, a
public key message comprising an encrypted key;
identifying a region descriptor in the public key message;
determining a secret key based on the region descriptor;
and
decrypting the encrypted key using the secret key to
produce a transmitted public key.

Appeal 2018-001374
Application 13/305,958
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Gressel et al. (“Gressel”) US 5,664,017 Sept. 2, 1997
Earnshaw US 2007/0030967 A1 Feb. 8, 2007

REJECTION2
Claims 1–22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gressel and Earnshaw.

OPINION
The Examiner finds Gressel teaches most of the limitations of claim 1,
including “identifying a region descriptor in the public key message” and
“determining a secret key based on the region descriptor.” Final Act. 3
(citing Gressel, 2:18–21). The Examiner further states that “Gressel does
not explicitly cite decrypting an encrypted key.” Id. The Examiner then
finds:
In the same field of endeavor Earnshaw also teaches using a
regional key (secret key derived from a regional descriptor); see
paragraph 73, Earnshaw. In particular, Earnshaw [teaches] how
a key (secret key) required to decrypt the control word is only
available in a specified region, the control word is encrypted
(encrypted key); see paragraphs 34 and 58, Earnshaw. So, a
region specific key (secret key derived from region) is used to
decrypt the encrypted control word (decrypt the encrypted key).
By decrypting encrypted control words/keys, the system is able

2 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”) included revisions to
35 U.S.C. § 103 that became effective on March 16, 2013. Because the
present application was filed before March 16, 2013, the Examiner applies
the pre-AIA version of the statutory basis for unpatentability.
Appeal 2018-001374
Application 13/305,958
4
to deliver content to its intended region and avoid viewing by
unintended regions; see paragraph 33, Earnshaw.
Id. (emphasis omitted).
Appellant argues the Examiner’s findings are in error because “[t]he
‘control word’ of Earnshaw is not an equivalent of the public key, as both a
public key and secret key for encryption are disclosed in Earnshaw, meaning
the control word must be something different than a key.” Appeal Br. 7.
We are not persuaded of error.
Appellant has not explained why the relied-upon disclosure fails to
teach or suggest the claimed feature under its broadest reasonable
interpretation in light of the Specification; rather, Appellant merely alleges
that the feature is different because it is described in different terms. Cf. In
re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (explaining that the comparison
of references to the claimed invention “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test”).
As the Examiner finds, and we agree, “Earnshaw teaches how a key (secret
key) is required to decrypt the control word, [and] the control word is
encrypted (encrypted key); see paragraphs 34 and 58, Earnshaw.” Ans. 3.
The Examiner further notes:
Just because Earnshaw uses the terms “key,” “public key,” and
“secret key,” does not exclude “control word” from being
equivalent to [recte: synonymous with] the appellant’s claimed
“encrypted key”. Earnshaw first explains how the “control
word” can be decrypted, just like the appellant’s “encrypted
key”. Second, “control word” can be decrypted using a secret
key, just as the “encrypted key” is (appellant is reminded that
the claims do not state decryption via only a secret key).
Finally, “encrypted key” and Earnshaw’s “control word” are
functionally equivalent [recte: synonymous] (same utility)
[because] both are decrypted using a “secret key” (not
necessarily only a secret key).
Appeal 2018-001374
Application 13/305,958
5
Id. at 4.
The Examiner’s findings are supported by the cited disclosure. In
particular, Earnshaw discloses a system “designed for the regional
distribution of encryption (or more strictly, decryption) keys, which are
intended to enable the descrambling of broadcast television or radio content
from a satellite.” Earnshaw ¶ 33. Earnshaw further discloses that, “[i]n
order to limit the descrambling of the service to a given region within the
satellite footprint, the system makes the keys required to decrypt the control
words for the descrambling only available in a specified region within the
footprints.” Id. ¶ 34 (emphasis added). In other words, the control words
are used for descrambling transmissions (functioning therefore as a key), and
the control words are themselves encrypted for transmission using a secret
key that is regionalized. See also id. ¶ 58.
Appellant presents no other arguments challenging the Examiner’s
findings. Accordingly, on this record, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of independent claim 1 as unpatentable over Gressel and Earnshaw. For the
same reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–22,
which Appellant argues collectively with claim 1. See Appeal Br. 6, 8; 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2018-001374
Application 13/305,958
6
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1–22 is
affirmed.
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–22 103(a) Gressel, Earnshaw 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)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED