Wajs, Andrew Augustine.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 13, 20212019005190 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2021) Copy Citation 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. 14/354,487 08/06/2014 Andrew Augustine Wajs 14-30198-US 2813 128144 7590 01/13/2021 Rimon PC One Embarcadero Center Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94111 EXAMINER PETERSON, TERRIKA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/13/2021 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): docketing.rimonlaw@clarivate.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com patentdocketing@rimonlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANDREW AUGUSTINE WAJS ________________ Appeal 2019-005190 Application 14/354,487 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1‒18.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Irdeto B.V. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-005190 Application 14/354,487 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s application relates to arranging selected use of control words for decrypting content that is delivered to a plurality of receivers. Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows: 1. A method, implemented by one or more processors, of enabling selected use of control words for decrypting content, said control words being distributed to each of a plurality of receivers or groups of receivers, the method comprising: establishing a plurality of sets of primary product keys, each set containing at least two different primary product keys; making available one and only one primary product key of each set to each receiver or group of receivers, such that each receiver or group of receivers is provided with a different combination of said primary product keys; for each set of primary product keys, providing to the plurality of receivers or groups of receivers a different primary entitlement control message corresponding to each primary product key of said set, each such primary entitlement control message distributing a primary control word for recovery through decryption using the corresponding primary product key, the primary control word being configured to decrypt content. The Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 2, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhao (CN 101924907; Dec. 22, 2010) and Wajs (US 2003/0194091 A1; Oct. 16, 2003). See Non-Final Act. 3‒9. Appeal 2019-005190 Application 14/354,487 3 Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Zhao, Wajs, and Defreese (US 2005/0152551 A1; July 14, 2005). See Non- Final Act. 9‒10. Claims 4‒8, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhao, Wajs, and Fransdonk (US 7,415,440 B1; Aug. 19, 2008). See Non-Final Act. 10‒14. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhao, Wajs, and Derouet (US 7,881,478 B2; Feb. 1, 2011). See Non-Final Act. 14‒16. Claims 11‒14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Zhao, Wajs, Derouet, and Slattery (US 6,064,676; May 16, 2000). See Non-Final Act. 16‒19. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds the combination of Zhao and Wajs teaches or suggests “for each set of primary product keys, providing to the plurality of receivers or groups of receivers a different primary entitlement control message corresponding to each primary product key of said set,” as recited in claim 1. See Non-Final Act. 4‒6. In particular, the Examiner finds Wajs teaches a plurality of sets of primary product keys, each set including a plurality of keys. See Ans. 5 (citing Wajs ¶ 13). The Examiner finds Zhao teaches the claimed “primary entitlement control message” by teaching encrypted control words in an ECM data packet are decrypted using obtained product keys to obtain the control words. See id. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1 because both Zhao and Wajs teach sending each receiver a single message based on its Appeal 2019-005190 Application 14/354,487 4 key, not multiple messages. See Reply Br. 2. Appellant argues Zhao does not teach a plurality of sets of primary product keys and, therefore, cannot teach sending messages for each set of primary product keys. See Appeal Br. 8‒ 10. Appellant argues Wajs teaches encrypting control words and providing control messages only for a single set of keys, and does not teach sending different entitlement control messages corresponding to each key for each of the sets. See id. at 15‒16. Appellant has persuaded us of Examiner error. Claim 1 recites “establishing a plurality of sets of primary product keys, each set containing at least two different primary product keys.” Claim 1 further recites “for each set of primary product keys, providing to the plurality of receivers or groups of receivers a different primary entitlement control message corresponding to each primary product key of said set.” Thus, claim 1 requires providing primary entitlement control messages corresponding to primary product keys for each set of primary product keys. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner does not identify any teachings in Zhao or Wajs of sending an entitlement control message for each of a plurality of sets of primary product keys. The Examiner finds Zhao teaches this feature by using a product key to obtain a control word, but these teachings relate to a single entitlement control message. See Ans. 5‒6. Similarly, Wajs teaches sending an entitlement control message containing a control word encoded by a plurality of keys from a single set. See Wajs ¶ 22 (“The control word used by the provider system 1 to scramble the content is encrypted in this example using the keys of the first set A, i.e. the keys A,a, A,b . . . A,e.”). However, the Examiner’s findings in the Answer and the Non-Final Action do not account for the requirement that a different Appeal 2019-005190 Application 14/354,487 5 entitlement control message is sent for each set of primary product keys. See Non-Final Act. 3‒9; see also Ans. 5‒6. Thus, on this record, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection. For these reasons, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1.2 We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 16, which recites commensurate subject matter. We also do not sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2 and 15 for the same reasons. Claims 3‒14, 17, and 18 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Zhao, Wajs, and a combination of additional references. See Non-Final Act. 9‒19. The Examiner does not find that any of these additional references cures the deficiency explained above. Accordingly, we also do not sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 3‒14, 17, and 18 for the same reasons. CONCLUSION In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 15, 16 103(a) Zhao, Wajs 1, 2, 15, 16 3 103(a) Zhao, Wajs, Defreese 3 4‒8, 17, 18 103(a) Zhao, Wajs, Fransdonk 4‒8, 17, 18 9, 10 103(a) Zhao, Wajs, Derouet 9, 10 11‒14 103(a) Zhao, Wajs, Derouet, Slattery 11‒14 Overall Outcome 1‒18 REVERSED 2 Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments advanced by Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation