Adobe Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 13, 2021

2021002280 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 13, 2021)

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