Ex Parte Kennedy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 15, 2017

13030537 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 15, 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.
13/030,537 02/18/2011 Kevin J. Kennedy 4366-529 2903
48500 7590 12/19/2017
SHERIDAN ROSS P.C.
1560 BROADWAY, SUITE 1200
DENVER, CO 80202
EXAMINER
SCHMIDT, KARIL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2017 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):
cjacquet@ sheridanross.com
pair_Avay a @ firsttofile. com
edocket @ sheridanross .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KEVIN J. KENNEDY1
Appeal 2017-007621
Application 13/030,537
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—8, 10-12, 15—18, and 20-24, which are all of the claims pending in
the application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Avaya Inc. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 9, 13, 14, and 19 are cancelled.
Appeal 2017-007621
Application 13/030,537
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
According to Appellant, the claims are directed to a policy
enforcement system that determines whether content can be shared with
other parties. Spec. 5:17—19, 17:8—9, 39:6—11.3 Claim 1, reproduced below
with line breaks added for clarity, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a hardware microprocessor, in a first
communication session, existing media content from a
communication device of a first subscriber, wherein the first
subscriber has privileged access to the existing media content;
analyzing, by the hardware microprocessor, the existing
media content in the first communication session to identity a
behavior of a second subscriber relevant to a policy or rule,
wherein the second subscriber has privileged access
to the existing media content,
wherein the existing media content of the first
communication session is accessed by a communication
device of the second subscriber,
wherein the behavior is the communication device
of the second subscriber receiving input attempting to
make the existing media content in the first
communication session accessible to one or more
communication devices of one or more selected other
parties in another communication session,
3 This Decision refers to: (1) Appellant’s Specification filed February 18,
2011 (Spec.); (2) the Final Office Action (Final Act.) mailed September 22,
2016; (3) the Advisory Action (Adv. Act.) mailed October 28, 2016; (4) the
Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed December 13, 2016; (5) the Examiner’s
Answer (Ans.) mailed March 23, 2017; and (6) the Reply Brief (Reply Br.)
filed April 21, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-007621
Application 13/030,537
wherein at least one of the one or more selected
other parties does not have privileged access to the
existing media content;
notifying, by the hardware microprocessor, a policy
enforcement server of the identified determined behavior; and
receiving, by the hardware microprocessor, and from the
policy enforcement server, a policy measure to be implemented;
and
implementing, by the hardware processor, the received
policy measure, wherein the implemented received policy
measure is to deny the input attempting to make the existing
media content in the first communication session accessible to
the communication device of the at least one of the one or more
selected other parties who does not have privileged access to the
existing media content.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong (US 2007/0183342 Al; published Aug. 9, 2007)
and Haveson (US 2008/0066181 Al; published Mar. 13, 2008). Final Act.
3-7.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 22 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wong, Haveson, and Kim
(US 2008/0178001 Al; published July 24, 2008). Final Act. 7-13.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wong, Haveson, Kim, and Bramson (US 2006/0047725 Al; published
Mar. 2, 2006). Final Act. 14—15.
Claims 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong, Haveson, Kim, and Van Riel (US 2009/0138506
Al; published May 28, 2009). Final Act. 15—16.
3
Appeal 2017-007621
Application 13/030,537
Claims 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong, Haveson, and Pragada (US 2007/0136397 Al;
published June 14, 2007). Final Act. 17.
Claims 21 and 244 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wong, Haveson, Kim, and Pannu (US 2006/0248573 Al;
published Nov. 2, 2006). Final Act. 18—20.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Wong, Haveson, Kim, and Lim (US 2008/0059474 Al; published Mar.
6, 2008). Final Act. 21.
CONTENTIONS AND ANALYSIS
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Wong.
Namely, Appellant contends Wong does not teach
analyzing, by the hardware microprocessor, the existing media
content in the first communication session to identify a behavior
of a second subscriber. . . wherein the behavior is the
communication device of the second subscriber receiving input
attempting to make the existing media content in the first
communication session accessible to one or more
communication devices of one or more selected other parties,
as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4—6. Specifically, Appellant
argues “[jjust because Wong discloses that the peer computer system 150
receives a video stream and provides the same video stream to the peer
computer system 120 does not mean that the peer computer systems 120 or
150 actually analyze[] the content of the video stream to identify a
4 The Examiner includes a heading additionally rejecting claim 24 over the
combination of Wong, Haveson, and Lim. Final Act. 22. However, the
rejection that follows is directed to claim 23, not claim 24. We consider this
a mere clerical error.
4
Appeal 2017-007621
Application 13/030,537
behavior.” Reply Br. 5; App. Br. 8. I.e., “in Wong, the media is just sent to
a peer computer system based on [a] request.” App. Br. 8.
We are persuaded. The Examiner finds (Ans. 2—3) Wong teaches a
peer computer system 120 may receive content from the server system 110
and, in turn, provide it to another peer computer system 140 (Wong 114; see
Wong 127, Fig. 1). The Examiner further finds (Ans. 3; Adv. Act. 2)
Wong’s peer-to-peer sharing includes “streaming and downloading of DRM
protected files” (Wong 115). Additionally, the Examiner finds Wong’s
“client would permit content protected by DRM within a first stream to be
restreamed to a requesting client (i.e., [the] request being the behavior) and
thus the client would provide the stream to the requesting client based on
policy or rules contained in the DRM of content within stream.” Ans. 4;
Adv. Act. 2.
We determine that, although Wong shares DRM-protected media
content between peers, the Examiner has not shown how Wong teaches or
suggests that the media content, or its DRM, is analyzed to identify an
attempt to share the media content. Appellant highlights that the claim
requires analyzing the media content itself to “identify a behavior of a
second subscriber,” and specifically, a behavior of attempting to share that
media content. App. Br. 8, 10; Reply Br. 5. Indeed, the claim recites “the
behavior is the communication device of the second subscriber receiving
input attempting to make the existing media content in the first
communication session accessible to one or more communication devices of
one or more selected other parties.” As such, the claim requires analyzing
the media content itself to identity receiving input attempting to share that
media content with another user. Wong, however, does not identity
5
Appeal 2017-007621
Application 13/030,537
receiving input attempting to share media content by analyzing the media
content itself. See Wong || 14—15, 20-22, 27—28, Fig. 3. Namely, although
Wong teaches encrypting media content using DRM (Wong 139) to share
DRM-protected media content (Wong || 15, 35), Wong does not teach that
the media content is analyzed to identify receiving input attempting to share
that media content. Furthermore, although the Examiner finds Wong’s
DRM content within a stream is analyzed, the Examiner does not establish
that an analysis of DRM protections is an analysis of media content. See
Ans. 4. Thus, the Examiner has not shown, or explained in sufficient detail,
how Wong’s media content is used to identify receiving input attempting to
share that media content. Additionally, the Examiner does not rely on
Haveson to teach the disputed limitations. See Ans. 2-4; see also Adv. Act.
2; see also Final Act. 4—6. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 for these reasons.
As Appellant discusses, independent claims 10 and 18 include the
same requirements as independent claim 1 (App. Br. 11) and the Examiner
rejects claims 10 and 18 for the same reasons as claim 1 (Final Act. 7, 17).
In particular, claims 1,10, and 18 similarly require that the media content
itself is examined in order to identify an attempt to share that media content.
Claim 10 recites
analyzing] the first communication session and the existing
media content in the first communication session to identify a
behavior . . . wherein the behavior is the communication device
of the second subscriber receiving input attempting to make the
existing media content in the first communication session
accessible to one or more communication devices of one or more
selected other parties in another communication session
(emphases added).
6
Appeal 2017-007621
Application 13/030,537
Claim 18 recites
searching], analyzing], or tag[ging] a received first
communication session and existing media content in the first
communication session to identify an actual or potential policy
or rule violation. . . wherein the violation is the second
subscriber communication device receiving input attempting to
make the existing media content in the first communication
session accessible to one or more communication devices of one
or more selected other parties in another communication session.
Claim 18 requires that media content is examined, i.e., “searche[d],
analyze[d], or tag[ged],” to identify receiving input attempting to share that
media content, i.e., “receiving input attempting to make the existing media
content in the first communication session accessible to one or more
communication devices of one or more selected other parties.” Accordingly,
we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 10
and 18 for the reasons as claim 1.
Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellant, we need not reach the merits of Appellant’s other arguments. See
App. Br. 9—15. It follows that Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred
in concluding that the combined teachings of Wong and Haveson render
claims 1 and 10 unpatentable; the combined teachings of Wong, Haveson,
and Kim render claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 22 unpatentable; the
combined teachings of Wong, Haveson, Kim, and Bramson render claim 4
unpatentable; the combined teachings of Wong, Haveson, Kim, and
Van Riel render claims 7 and 16 unpatentable; the combined teachings of
Wong, Haveson, and Pragada render claims 18 and 20 unpatentable; the
combined teachings of Wong, Haveson, Kim, and Pannu render claims 21
and 24 unpatentable; and the combined teachings of Wong, Haveson, Kim,
and Lim render claim 23 unpatentable.
7
Appeal 2017-007621
Application 13/030,537
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1—8, 10-12, 15—18, and 20—24.
REVERSED
8