Ex Parte KellyDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201713910535 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2017) 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. 13/910,535 06/05/2013 Brian E. Kelly TWC 04-21C1/1033-18 CON 9897 98417 7590 12/20/2017 Otterstedt, Ellenbogen & Kammer, LLP P.O. Box 381 Cos Cob, CT 06807-0381 EXAMINER RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2426 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/20/2017 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIAN E. KELLY Appeal 13/910,535 Application 2017-0065021 Technology Center 2400 Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, HUNG H. BUI, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellant identifies Time Warner Cable Enterprises, LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-006502 Application 13/910,535 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention Appellant describes the invention as follows: A user may utilize a “home video on demand (HVOD)” service to distribute a video recorded using, e.g., a conventional camcorder, to desired viewers who have access to a broadband communications network, e.g., a cable TV network. The inventive system providing the HVOD service may receive from the user the video recording via email, postal mail, the Internet, computer transfer, etc. The inventive system converts the received video recording from its original video format to a uniform format, e.g., an MPEG-2 format. The converted video recording is stored in storage and made available to authorized viewers through the cable TV network. Abstract. Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below. 1. A method for providing a video service over a communications network, the method comprising: receiving, by the communications network, a plurality of video recordings from a user of the video service, the video recordings being formatted in an original video format, wherein at least two of the plurality of video recordings are associated, by the user, with different passwords; converting, in the communications network, the video recordings from the original video format to a selected video format for transportation of the video recordings in the selected video format through the communications network; and accessing, by one or more selected parties, at least one of the video recordings in the selected video format through the communications network, the one or more selected parties being selected by the user, wherein the one or more selected parties’ access to the at least one of the video recordings in the selected video format is 2 Appeal 2017-006502 Application 13/910,535 conditioned on a verification of the password associated with the at least one of the video recordings. References and Rejections 1. Claims 20-22, 27 and 28 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting over U.S. Patent No. 8,479,239. Final Act. 2— 8. 2. Claim 1—5, 7—14, and 16—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas (US 2002/0059621 Al, published May 16, 2002), Asadu (US 2004/0078336 Al, published Apr. 22, 2004). Final Act. 8—17. 3. Claims 6 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Thomas, Asadu, and Kamen (US 2003/0014750 Al, published Jan. 16,2003). Final Act. 17. ANALYSIS Nonstatutory Double Patenting The Examiner rejects claims 20—22, 27 and 28 on the grounds of non statutory obviousness-type double patenting over claims 1^4 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,479,239. Final Act. 2—8. Appellant does not present any arguments against these rejections, thus waiving any arguments with respect thereto. See App. Br. 7 (“Appellants [sic] will consider filing a terminal disclaimer upon resolution of the remaining rejections.”) Accordingly, we summarily sustain the double patenting rejection in this proceeding. 3 Appeal 2017-006502 Application 13/910,535 Obviousness Rejection Claims 1—6, 8—15, and 16—30 Claim 1 recites “receiving ... a plurality of video recordings from a user of the video service. . . wherein at least two of the plurality of video recordings are associated, by the user, with different passwords.” The Examiner finds Thomas teaches an on demand media delivery service where a user uploads video recordings and can grant access to those recordings to a selected party, via a password. Final Act. 9 (citing Thomas 104, 123, 124, 126, 127.) The Examiner acknowledges that although passwords are associated with different selected parties (to allow a selected party to access the recordings), Thomas does not teach associating passwords with the recordings themselves. Final Act. 9; see also Ans. 19— 20. However, the Examiner relies on Asadu for teaching a secret key applied to a second content is different from [the key applied to] the first content.” Final Act. 10. In light of Asadu’s teaching of applying different secret keys to different content, the Examiner concludes that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify Thomas so that different passwords can be applied to Thomas’s different recordings. Final Act. 10; Ans. 20—21. Appellant contends that Thomas and Asadu do not teach “receiving . . . a plurality of video recordings from a user of the video service. . . wherein at least two of the plurality of video recordings are associated, by the user, with different passwords,” as recited in claim 1. Specifically, Appellant argues that “Thomas is limited to a password associated with an account identity, which enables complete access to a media account.... In view of 4 Appeal 2017-006502 Application 13/910,535 the foregoing, Thomas does not teach different passwords associated with different video recordings.” App. Br. 8—9. With regard to Asadu, Appellant argues “Asadu fails to teach or suggest a password” but instead teaches a system that uses secret and public keys “wherein the keys are generated by a key issuing server” in service of a broadcaster and not by a user. App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 11 (“Moreover, the keys of Asadu are generated in the service of a broadcaster, which is distinct from the claimed ‘user’ . . . .”). Appellant also argues that because Asadu relates to private key encryption and “[t]he field of data encryption is not particularly related to data verification” the teachings of Asadu “lacks application to data verification.” App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 12 (“Consider that public/private keys and signatures are used for different, distinct, purposes as compared to passwords” where “[a] key servers cryptographic purposes” while “passwords are verified to condition access approval of a user.”). Finally, Appellant argues that “the rejection does not articulate a rational underpinning for the combination of Thomas with Asadu.” App. Br. 10. In particular, Appellant argues “[i]t is not clear from the rejection how the keys of Asadu can be repurposed to provide verification functionality.” App. Br. 10. We are unpersuaded by Appellants’ arguments. Instead we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts and concur with the Examiner’s conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was taken. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner that Thomas teaches all of the limitations of the claim, except that passwords are associated with party accounts rather than with the different video 5 Appeal 2017-006502 Application 13/910,535 recordings. We agree with the Examiner, however, that one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to modify Thomas so that the passwords are associated with the video recordings rather than with user accounts because Asadu teaches that public/private keys can be applied to individual video recordings, and making the modification from associating passwords with selected parties to associating passwords with videos is predictable and would not be “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Appellant’s argument that Asadu generates public/private keys “in the service of a broadcaster” (Reply Br. 11) rather than by a user, attacks Asadu individually and fails to address the Examiner’s findings as a whole. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[0]ne cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.”). The Examiner relies upon Thomas (not Asadu) as teaching that the passwords are associated by a user who grants access rights to selected parties to the desired data. See Ans. 20; see also Thomas Tflf 104, 124 (“After a file has been uploaded in step 1462, a user may want to assign access rights to that file”). Appellant’s argument that the teachings of Asadu regarding public/private keys “lacks application to data verification” provided by passwords, is also misplaced. It is Thomas, not Asadu that provides for data verification by use of passwords. Asadu is merely relied upon to suggest that Thomas’s passwords can be applied, not only to party accounts, but also to the uploaded videos themselves. 6 Appeal 2017-006502 Application 13/910,535 As for Appellant’s argument that the Examiner has failed to provide a rational underpinning for combining Thomas with Asadu because “[i]t is not clear from the rejection how the keys of Asadu can be repurposed to provide verification functionality” (App. Br. 10), we disagree. Appellant’s argument misunderstands the Examiner’s rejection. Asadu’s keys are relied upon for the suggestion that Thomas’s passwords can be applied to the different videos themselves rather than to selected parties, not that the keys themselves have to repurposed to provide data verification. For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error in the rejection of claim 1. Appellant argues claims 2—5, 8— 14, and 16—30 together with claim 1, and makes no arguments for separate patentability of claims 6 and 15 (see App. Br. 11). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the reasons stated above. Claim 7 Claim 7 depends from claim 1, and recites “wherein the password associated with the at least one of the video recordings is received by the communications network and the one or more selected parties from the user, wherein the communications network receives the password from the one or more selected parties to determine that the one or more selected parties are authorized to view the at least one of the video recordings.” Appellant argues “As noted above, Thomas is limited to a password associated with an account identify . . . while the keys of Asadu are generated by a key issuing server . . . .” App. Br. 11. “Stated simply, proposed combination of Thomas and Asadu fails to teach an originating user providing passwords for different video recordings at least because 7 Appeal 2017-006502 Application 13/910,535 Thomas is limited to account level security protocols and Asadu is limited to keys generated by a broadcaster.” App. Br. 11. We are unpersuaded of Examiner error for the reasons stated above with respect to claim 1, namely that (1) Thomas teaches that a user associates passwords with selected parties for accessing media files and (2) Asadu suggests modifying Thomas so that the user associates the passwords with the media files rather than just with the selected parties. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—30 is 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(f). AFFIRMED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation