Adobe Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardDec 13, 20212021002280 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 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. 15/079,788 03/24/2016 Arun Anantharaman P5402-US03 2200 108982 7590 12/13/2021 FIG. 1 Patents 116 W. Pacific Avenue Suite 200 Spokane, WA 99201 EXAMINER COPPOLA, JACOB C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3685 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/13/2021 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): Fig1Docket@fig1patents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ARUN ANANTHARAMAN ____________ Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. FETTING, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE1 Arun Anantharaman (Appellant2) seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of a final rejection of claims 1–17 and 21–23, the only claims pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Appellant invented digital rights management techniques that leverage organizational associations. Specification para. 3. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below (bracketed matter and some paragraphing added). 1. In a digital medium environment to control content access, a method implemented by a computing device, the method comprising: [1] receiving, by the computing device, content having digital rights management functionality embedded as part of the content, the content including: [1.1] a first item of the content having information involving interactions of users having a first organizational trait with an organization; and 1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed November 17, 2020) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed February 12, 2021), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed December 22, 2020), and Final Action (“Final Act.,” mailed July 18, 2019). 2 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Adobe Inc. (Appeal Br. 3). Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 3 [1.2] a second item of the content having information involving interactions of users having a second organizational trait with the organization; [2] executing, by a processing system of the computing device in response to a user request, operations by digital rights management functionality embedded as part of the content, the operations including: [2.1] collecting data that describes an organizational trait associated with the user request; [2.2] determining from the data that the organizational trait associated with the user request meets the first organizational trait and not the second organizational trait enforced by the embedded digital rights management module for the content; and [2.3] responsive to the determining, permitting access to the information of the first organization trail [sic] of the first item of the content by the embedded digital rights management module and not the information of the second item of the content of the second organizational trait. Appeal Br. 29 (Claims Appendix). The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Name Reference Date Kobata US 2002/0077986 A1 June 20, 2002 Tenneti US 2013/0332987 A1 Dec. 12, 2013 Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 4 Claims 1–10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention. Claims 1, 6–8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kobata. Claims 2–5, 9, 12–14, 17, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobata and Tenneti. ISSUES The issues of indefiniteness matter are uncontested. The issues of novelty and obviousness turn primarily on whether the art describes the broad limitations of the claims. FACTS PERTINENT TO THE ISSUES Facts Related to the Prior Art Kobata 01.Kobata is directed to dynamically controlling and managing digital assets. Kobata para. 02. 02. Kobata describes digital assets (which typically are encrypted) placed in a controlled environment in which access to the assets can be limited. For example, the environment may permit the digital asset to be manipulated only by a particular viewer and only in particular ways that are consistent with the rights granted to the recipient. The viewer interacts with the database to control access to the digital asset. Kobata para. 13. Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 5 03. Kobata describes that authorizing manipulation of the digital asset may include authenticating a computer system on which a recipient is attempting to manipulate the digital asset, and communicating with a remotely located global rights management unit to authenticate the recipient and/or a computer system on which the recipient is attempting to manipulate the digital asset. Tracking data may be communicated to the global rights management unit each time that the recipient attempts to manipulate the digital asset. The tracking data may include at least one of an identity of a computer system on which the digital asset is being hosted, a location of the computer system, a time that the digital asset was received, a time that manipulation of the digital asset is attempted, and a manner of manipulation of the digital asset that is being attempted. Kobata para. 76. 04. Kobata describes an assignment of rights across the entire content or with increasing levels of granularity such as, for example, by page, by file location, or by seconds of a movie. The digital rights description is used by the dynamic digital rights management system to describe the digital content, identify the scope and granularity of the specified rights. Kobata para. 138. 05. Kobata describes the personal rights manager module locating the end-user's digital certificate and/or computer device identification information and communicating with the global rights manager unit to verify that the particular end-user is authorized to manipulate the particular digital content on the particular computer device. Kobata para. 143. Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 6 06. Kobata describes granting authorization to manipulate the digital content in various ways, such as identifying the computer device or end-user on which the digital content is attempted to be manipulated and verifying that the digital content is authorized to be manipulated on the computer device or end-user. Credential information (e.g., information about LAN, Windows NT domain, Windows NT group, or Windows NT user credentials) may be used to identify and authenticate the computer device (and end- user). Kobata para. 248. Tenneti 07.Tenneti is directed to secure management of digital or electronic information relating to a user, and more specifically, sharing and aggregating digital or electronic information related to a user between one or more devices. Tenneti para. 3. 08. Tenneti describes client devices storing certified attributes acquired by users from trusted services that can authenticate certain attributes related to the user (e.g., attributes relating to age, gender, education, club membership, employer, frequent flyer or frequent buyer status, credit rating, etc.). Attribute information may be used locally on a user's device. Alternatively, attribute information may be shared with other devices and/or entities that are trusted by the user. For example, trusted entities and/or services may use shared attribute information to refine the attributes, to derive new attributes, and/or to screen ads as part of a trusted service that the consumer subscribes to. Devices may also generate and/or collect other attributes from various user Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 7 events including, for example, metrics or attributes derivable from a user's history of interactivity with ads, purchasing history, browsing history, content rendering history, and/or the like. Tenneti para. 54. ANALYSIS Claims 1–10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention The Examiner rejects the claims for lack of antecedent basis as to the embedded digital rights management module. Final Act. 3. Appellant does not contest this, but instead proposes an amendment, which is not yet entered. Appeal Br. 12. Accordingly we summarily sustain the rejection. Claims 1, 6–8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 21 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kobata We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that there is no indication that Kobata's increasing levels of granularity are related to an organizational trait, e.g., a first organizational trait or a second organizational trait. Rather, Kobata's levels of granularity relate to assignment of rights, for instance, by page, by file location, or by seconds of a movie. In Kobata this is performed for particular users, i.e., the “who.” This does not disclose information involving users with certain organizational traits. Appeal Br. 15. The only limitations constraining what is meant by such an organizational trait is limitations 2.2 and 2.3, reciting that the embedded digital rights management module enforces data access, and limitations 1.1 and 1.2 reciting that such traits are in some sense related to users. As the Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 8 Examiner determines, Kobata describes digital assets placed in a controlled environment in which access to the assets can be limited. For example, the environment may permit the digital asset to be manipulated only by a particular viewer and only in particular ways that are consistent with the rights granted to the recipient. Kobata also describes the personal rights manager module locating the end-user's digital certificate and/or computer device identification information and communicating with the global rights manager unit to verify that the particular end-user is authorized to manipulate the particular digital content on the particular computer device. And Kobata describes granting authorization to manipulate the digital content in various ways, such as identifying the computer device (or end- user) on which the digital content is attempted to be manipulated and verifying that the digital content is authorized to be manipulated on the computer device or end-user. Credential information (e.g., information about LAN, Windows NT domain, Windows NT group, or Windows NT user credentials) may be used to identify and authenticate the computer device (and end-user). Final Act. 3–4; FF 01–06. These findings are in the light of the breadth of claim 1. We first note that in the limitation “information involving interactions,” no constraint is placed on the manner, degree, or nature of such interactions or how such involving occurs. Nothing in the claims narrows the nature, character, or degree of “organizational.” The data used in limitations 2.2 and 2.3 to determine access is the data collected in step 2.1, not the content received in limitation 1. The claims impose no restriction on the nature, character, or expression of such data or the manner of collection. Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 9 The Examiner cites Specification paragraph 32 as supporting Kobata being within the scope of the claim. Ans. 8. That paragraph states: A variety of different DRM traits 210 may be specified, such as traits particular to a behavior but are not unique to individual members having the behavior, e.g., may be satisfied by a plurality of users. Examples of such behavioral traits that are usable to determine potential interaction of a user with content include age group 212 (e.g., particular age or age range), gender 214, geographic location 216 (e.g., based on IP address, city, state, region, country, continent), organizational associations such as profile 218 (e.g., traits included in a social network profile, business title in a business website, educational degrees achieved, particular skills), business status 220 (e.g., whether an associated business is in good standing, business certifications), group membership 222 (e.g., membership to a particular organization), and other traits such as device characteristics 224 of a device being used by the user to gain access (e.g., brand, hardware resources, software resources, display resources), temporal traits (e.g., business hours, time of day, day of week, week of month, year), and so forth. Spec. para. 32 (emphasis added). The Examiner thus determines that Kobata’s use of the trait of a user being associated with a particular piece of equipment and that trait being used to identify whether the user has access to content, involving the interaction of a user trying to access the content, based on information of the equipment being collected for such purpose, is within the scope of such organizational trait, interactions, and collection. Whether such an example is what Appellant had in mind does not negate the fact this example fits within the broad scope of the claim. Appellant’s remaining arguments are directed to what the claims may accomplish, but anticipation is based on what the claims recite, not what they can help do outside the scope of the claim. Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 10 The law of anticipation does not require that the reference “teach” what the subject patent teaches. Assuming that a reference is properly “prior art,” it is only necessary that the claims under attack, as construed by the court, “read on” something disclosed in the reference, i.e., all limitations of the claim are found in the reference, or “fully met” by it. Kalman v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 713 F.2d 760, 772 (Fed. Cir. 1983). The remaining independent claims are substantially similar, and Appellant relies on the arguments in support of claim 1, which are equally unpersuasive as to the remaining independent claims. As to separately argued dependent claim 6, reciting that responsive to the determining that the second organizational trait is not met, restricting access to the information of the second item of the content and permitting access to another item of content in which the access to the other item of content is not permitted if the determination is made that the second organizational trait is met, this is just a logical extension of the access permission and denial of claim 1. We note that neither claim 1 nor claim 6 narrows the nature of such content, and would therefore encompass plural sub-contents, each having differing rights with respect to the same user. Beyond that, Kobata explicitly describes having differing rights within different granular segments of the same content. Claims 2–5, 9, 12–14, 17, 22, and 23 rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobata and Tenneti As to dependent claim 5, reciting that the determining by the embedded digital rights management module includes verifying data describing the organizational trait using at least one other source of data that also describes the organizational trait, the Examiner determined that both Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 11 Kobata and Tenneti describe this. Final Act. 7. We are not persuaded by Appellant's argument that Kobata does not verify "data describing the organizational trait," as claimed. Instead, Kobata authenticates a recipient attempting to manipulate a digital asset and/or the computer system on which the recipient is attempting to manipulate the digital asset as described above. Neither a recipient nor a computer system of a recipient corresponds to data, much less "data describing the organizational trait," as recited in claim 5. Appeal Br. 26. The trait the Examiner relies on is the trait of a user using a particular device. Again, the claims do not recite how the data recited is collected. Both Kobata and Tenneti describes conventional acquisition of data identifying a user by the device being used and authenticating the device to determine access privileges. The argument that neither a recipient nor a computer system of a recipient corresponds to data is tautologically true and accordingly irrelevant. Nothing a computer accesses is a recipient or system, it is always data from the recipient or system. No other claims are argued separately. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The rejection of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the invention is unchallenged. The rejection of claims 1, 6–8, 10, 11, 15, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as anticipated by Kobata is proper. The rejection of claims 2–5, 9, 12–14, 17, 22, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kobata and Tenneti is proper. Appeal 2021-002280 Application 15/079,788 12 CONCLUSION The rejections of claims 1–17 and 21–23 are affirmed. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–10 112(b) Indefiniteness 1–10 1, 6–8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21 102(a)(1) Kobata 1, 6–8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21 2–5, 9, 12–14, 17, 22, 23 103 Kobata Tenneti 2–5, 9, 12–14, 17, 22, 23 Overall Outcome 1–17, 21–23 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. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation