Ex Parte Kittel

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 23, 2016

12411592 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 23, 2016)

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.
12/411,592 03/26/2009 Armin W. KITTEL 20090006 5464
7590 11/28/201625537
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
JAKOVAC, RYAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/28/2016 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ARMIN W. KITTEL
Appeal 2015-005589
Application 12/411,592:
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—15 and 21—25, which are the only claims
pending. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as Verizon Communications Inc.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-005589
Application 12/411,592
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The invention relates to digital rights management in a peer-to-peer
environment. Abstract; Spec. Tflf 1, 2. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
exemplary of the subject matter on appeal (disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method performed by one or more servers within a
subscription multimedia network that provides a delivery
channel between a source media client and a requesting media
client, the method comprising:
receiving, by the one or more servers and from the source
media client, a content reference of digital content available on
a source peer device for sharing with the requesting media
client associated with a requesting peer device,
the content reference including digital rights management
restrictions and a unique identifier for the source media client,
and the source media client being associated with the source
peer device;
broadcasting, by the one or more servers and to the
requesting media client, the content reference of digital content
available on the source peer device within the subscription
multimedia network;
receiving, by the one or more servers and from the
requesting media client using the subscription multimedia
network, a selection of the content reference, the selection
being initiated by the requesting media client of the requesting
peer device;
obtaining, by the one or more servers and based on the
received selection of the content reference, credentials of the
requesting media client;
determining, by the one or more servers, whether the
credentials are acceptable for receiving the digital content based
on the digital rights management restrictions; and
providing, by the one or more servers and to the
requesting media client using the subscription multimedia
network, a decryption key for presentation of the digital content
on the requesting peer device when the credentials are
acceptable,
2
Appeal 2015-005589
Application 12/411,592
the requesting media client, after receiving the
decryption key, establishing a peer-to-peer connection with the
source media client, the peer-to-peer connection allowing the
source media client to directly provide the digital content to the
requesting media client over the peer-to-peer connection, and
the digital content being received by the requesting media client
without using the one or more servers,
the received digital content being decrypted by the requesting
media client using the decryption key to create decrypted digital
content.
App. Br. 17—18 (Claims Appendix).
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—6, 8—15, and 21—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Ikeda (US 2006/0059248 Al, published Mar. 16,
2006) and Stevens (US 20070083475 Al, published Apr. 12, 2007) in view
of Wajs (US 2009/0193525 Al, published July 30, 2009). Final Act. 4—12.
Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ikeda, Stevens, and Matsuraba et al. (US 7,769,881 B2,
issued Aug 3, 2010) (“Matsuraba”). Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Wajs teaches the claim
1 limitation:
[T]he requesting media client, after receiving the decryption
key, establishing a peer-to-peer connection with the source
media client, the peer-to-peer connection allowing the source
media client to directly provide the digital content to the
requesting media client over the peer-to-peer connection, and
the digital content being received by the requesting media client
without using the one or more servers, the received digital
3
Appeal 2015-005589
Application 12/411,592
content being decrypted by the requesting media client using
the decryption key to create decrypted digital content.
App. Br. 11—14; Reply Br. 2—7.
According to Appellant, Wajs does not teach after receiving the
decryption key, establishing a peer-to-peer connection and the digital
content being received by the requesting media client without using the one
or more servers. In particular, Appellant argues while Wajs teaches a
decryption key and establishing a peer-to-peer connection, the Examiner
provides insufficient evidence Wajs teaches establishing the peer-to-peer
connection after receiving the decryption key. App. Br. 11—14 (citing Wajs
1113, 40-44); Reply Br. 2-7 (citing Wajs H 36, 37, 39, 4(M4, 60, 61).
Regarding without using the one or more servers, Appellant argues Wajs’
server system “is clearly used to provide content to first client 7, second
client 8, and third client 9.” App. Br. 13 (citing Wajs H 40-44).
The Examiner finds Wajs’ “clients receive decryption keys and
identifiers” wherein “[t]he identifiers are used in order to establish a
connection . . . from between clients in a peer-to peer fashion.” Ans. 5
(citing Wajs H 43 44, Abstract). The Examiner finds the client first
receives the decryption keys and the identifiers and “[t]he received
identifiers are subsequently used in order to establish a peer-to-peer
connection for downloading content.” Id.
In addition, the Examiner finds the order of operations is an obvious
matter of design choice because “Wajs teaches both receiving decryption
keys as well as establishing peer-to-peer connections and in the illustrative
4
Appeal 2015-005589
Application 12/411,592
method as depicted in at least figs. 7—8 the reference explicitly states that
‘[t]he steps are not necessarily performed in the given order’ and that the
order of steps can be different from those shown in the figure.” Ans. 6
(citing Wajs Tflf 59—60, Figs. 7, 8).
In response to the Examiner’s Answer, Appellant argues Wajs’s
discussion of the order of operations is limited to the order of operation of
the steps set forth in Figure 7 as described in paragraph 59 and “[t]his
passage is not a blanket passage that can be applied to any order of
operations and used to support a position that any order can be modified,
with no teaching or suggestion, to achieve an obvious ‘matter of
design choice.’” Reply Br. 7. According to Appellant, “the Examiner is
misapplying the disclosure of WAJS to support a position that is not
disclosed in WAJS.” Id.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings above. Appellant provides no persuasive
evidence the Examiner’s findings are unreasonable. In addition, Wajs
teaches using decryption keys and establishing peer-to-peer connections and
Appellant presents no persuasive evidence that the order is more than a
matter of design choice. In this connection, the order can be establishing the
peer-to-peer connection after/prior to/simultaneous with receiving the
decryption key. The specific order selected provides performance benefits,
for example, establishing the peer-to-peer connection after receiving the
decryption key employs the peer-to-peer connection only when needed and
may reduce use of the peer-to-peer connection. Or, establishing the peer-to-
5
Appeal 2015-005589
Application 12/411,592
peer connection prior to receiving the decryption key may speed up the
receiving client’s access to the requested digital content.
Regarding the digital content being received by the requesting media
client without using the one or more servers, the Examiner finds:
Appellant's argument relies upon various portions of the
reference detailing functions of the server. Appellant's
arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. For
example, the claim language only requires the content to be
received without the use of a server. The claim language fails to
extend any restriction applied to the server beyond the receiving
function.
Wajs teaches exchanging digital content via peer-to-peer
connections (Wajs, Title, abstract, || 36-37). A peer-to-peer
connection is a connection in which data is received and/or
transmitted between two peer devices. In a peer-to-peer
connection the clients obtain file segments from other clients, i.e.
without using one or more servers (Wajs, 1 36, see also 1 39:
"when the number of active clients is large enough, all segments
will be available from at least one client, and clients will have no
need to get segments directly from the server").
A peer-to-peer transfer as in the reference does not involve a
server in the receiving function as the reception and transfer of
data is between two peer devices only. Accordingly, appellant's
arguments should not be held persuasive in this regard.
Ans. 4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner’s findings above.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1, and
independent claims 10 and 21 which recite similar features and are argued
together with claim 1. App. Br. 14. We also sustain the rejection of
6
Appeal 2015-005589
Application 12/411,592
dependent claims 2—6, 8, 9, 11—15, and 22—25 as these claims are not argued
separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—15 and 21—25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7