Ex Parte Kelly

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2017

13910535 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2017)

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