Ex Parte Bi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 4, 2016

10416292 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
10/416,292
100692 7590
AOL Inc./Finnegan
FILING DATE
0510612003
05/06/2016
901 New York Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Depeng Bi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10587.0052-00000 9788
EXAMINER
WILLIAMS, JEFFERY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2495
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/06/2016 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DEPENG BI, STEPHEN CHRISTOPHER GLADWIN,
TROY STEVEN DENKINGER, and JEFFREY JONATHAN SPURGAT
Appeal2014-007106
Application 10/416,292
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SivIITH, NABEEL U. KHAN, and AivIBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-007106
Application 10/416,292
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 13 and 15-35, which are all the claims remaining in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
13. A digital content transmission peripheral, comprising:
a digital content processor external to a computing platform, the
digital content processor configured to send status information to the
computing platform, wherein the status information indicates a readiness of
the digital content transmission peripheral to receive content from
computing platform;
an interface configured to receive encrypted digital content from the
computing platform in accordance with the status information;
wherein the digital content processor is further configured to decrypt
the encrypted digital content to produce raw digital content, the raw digital
content being inaccessible outside of the digital content transmission
peripheral;
a digital to analog converter configured to immediately convert the
raw digital content; and
a content transmitter configured to transmit the analog content, as a
data flow, to a content player for playback,
wherein the digital content after the analog content is transmitted to
the content player.
Prior Art
Davis us 6,064, 739 May 16, 2000
Silbershatz and Gavin, "Operating System Concepts," Chapter 12, pp.
397-428, John Wiley & Sons, 1999.
2
Appeal2014-007106
Application 10/416,292
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 13 and 15-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Appellants' Admitted Prior Art (AAP A), Silberschatz,
and Davis.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
We highlight the following issued raised in the Reply Brief for emphasis.
Appellants contend Figure 2 of Davis does not teach "a digital to
analog converter configured to immediately convert the raw digital content
to analog content" as recited in claim 13. See Reply Br. 3. However, the
Examiner cites Figure 3B of Davis, which shows a decryptor 324 to decrypt
the encrypted digital content to produce raw digital content, connected to
digital to analog convertor 326 to immediately convert the raw digital
content from the decryptor 324 to analog content. Ans. 3. Appellants'
arguments relating to Figure 2 of Davis have not persuasively shown error in
the Examiner's findings relating to Figure 3B of Davis.
Appellants contend the conversion in Figure 3B of Davis comes after
a time the encrypted content is stored in a buffer 300. Reply Br. 3--4.
However, the raw data is not stored in the buffer 300. Rather, the raw data is
produced by data decryptor 324, and is not stored in a buffer, but rather sent
to convertor 326 as shown in Figure 3B of Davis. Appellants' arguments
relating to the encrypted data stored in buffer 300 of Davis do not
3
Appeal2014-007106
Application 10/416,292
persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that the raw data from decryptor
324 is immediately sent to the digital to analog convertor 326.
Appellants contend the term "immediately," when read in light of
Appellants' Specification, requires decrypted data is not saved or stored.
Reply Br. 4--5. However, Appellants' contention does not persuasively
show error in the Examiner's findings that Figure 3B of Davis does not save
or store decrypted data, but rather immediately converts the decrypted data
to analog form. See Ans. 4--5.
Appellants contend the frame buffer in Davis is not outside the path of
raw digital data. Reply Br. 6, citing column 5, lines 1-9 of Davis. However,
the cited portion of Davis refers to Figure 2, not Figure 3B. Appellants have
not persuasively shown that the buffer 300 shown in Figure 3B of Davis
stores decrypted, or "raw," data.
We sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims
15-35, which fall with claim 13.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 13 and 15-35 are 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(±).
AFFIRMED
4