Ex Parte Levy

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2013

10797920 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/797,920 03/09/2004 Kenneth L. Levy P0951 3347
23735 7590 01/31/2013
DIGIMARC CORPORATION
9405 SW GEMINI DRIVE
BEAVERTON, OR 97008
EXAMINER
CORBO, NICHOLAS T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2427
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/31/2013 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 KENNETH L. LEVY
________________

Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 4, 7 – 11, 13 – 18, and 25 – 31. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 12,
and 19 – 24 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention is directed to adding intelligence information to the
headers of internet protocol (IP) packets, thus enabling a firewall to
determine if a given packet, without requiring other packets from the same
content and without touching the data within the given packet, can be
forwarded. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claims (Emphases Added)
1. A method of enforcing geographical restrictions on
content redistribution in a TCP/IP [transmission control
protocol/internet protocol] network in which content is
distributed in packet form, each packet including header data
and content data, the header data comprising information about
the packet and its payload, the method comprising the acts:
defining a geographical boundary across which certain
content data does not pass, wherein said boundary is defined –
at least in part – by a hardware firewall device; and
determining whether an IP packet should be regarded as
conveying content that should not cross said boundary, by
reference to one or more single-bit flags included in the header
data of said packet;
wherein said one or more flag bits are related to the
payload of a watermark in the content data.
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

3
4. A method of providing entertainment content from a
distributor to a home, while governing potential redistribution
of the content from the home, the method including forming an
IP packet having header data and body data, wherein the body
data includes content data, and the header data includes a first
destination address within the home to which the distributor
intends the content data be delivered, the method comprising:
the distributor forming said header data to additionally
include additional data specifying whether it is permissible to
send a copy of the content data in the packet to a second
destination address different than the first destination address,
wherein the additional data has at least two states, respectively
indicating:
(a) it is not permissible to send a copy of the
content data in the packet to any second destination
address; or
(b) it is not permissible to send a copy of the
content data in the packet to any second destination
address except to a second destination address within a
domain that also includes the first destination address;
and
wherein said domain comprises networked devices
associated with a single family, and restriction on potential
redistribution of the content is defined by reference to the
intended first address.
7. The method of claim 4 wherein a device associated with
the first destination address has a first physical location and a
device associated with the second destination address has a
second physical location, and the additional data includes a
field signaling that copying of data in said packet to said
second destination address should be:
(a) permitted if the second physical location is physically
proximate to the first physical location; and
(b) prohibited if the second physical location is
physically remote from the first physical location.
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

4
8. The method of claim 7 wherein the first and second
destination addresses are within a common domain.
25. A method of deterring unauthorized redistribution of
video entertainment from a consumer’s home network, the
consumer’s home network employing at least a computing
device and a networking device;
wherein acts performed by the computing device include:
ascertaining restriction information for the video
entertainment, said ascertaining including at least one of:
(a) extracting restriction information from header data
conveyed with the video entertainment; (b) obtaining
restriction information from a remote repository
associated with the video entertainment; or (c) discerning
the restriction information by reference to data decoded
from digital watermark information hidden within the
video entertainment;
dividing the video entertainment among payload
portions of plural IP packets;
including data indicating said ascertained
restriction information in header portions of each of said
IP packets; and
sending the packets to the networking device;
and wherein acts performed by the networking device
comprise examining said included data and refusing to transmit
the packets through the networking device to a different
network if the included data indicates that the video
entertainment should not be redistributed from the consumer’s
home network.
26. The method of claim 25 wherein the ascertaining includes
extracting restriction information from header data conveyed
with the video entertainment.
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

5
27. The method of claim 25 wherein the ascertaining includes
obtaining restriction information from a remote repository
associated with the video entertainment.
28. The method of claim 25 wherein the ascertaining includes
discerning the restriction information by reference to data
decoded from digital watermark information hidden within the
video entertainment.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 4, 7 – 9, 11, and 13 – 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Roese (US 2003/0217122 A1; Nov.
20, 2003). Ans. 3 – 7.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 10, 18, 25, 26, and 28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Roese and Levy ’899 (US 2001/
0044899 A1; Nov. 22, 2001). Ans. 8 – 12.
The Examiner rejects claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Roese, Levy ’899 and Levy ’844 (US 2002/0186844 A1;
Dec. 12, 2002). Ans. 12 – 13.
The Examiner rejects claims 29 – 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Roese, Levy ’899, and Medvinsky (US 2005/
0071663 A1; Mar. 31, 2005; filed Sept. 26, 2003). Ans. 13 – 14.
ISSUE 1
With respect to claim 4, Appellant argues that the arrangement of
Roese “inserts a tag in certain packets. This tag indicates that the packets
should not be accessed if found outside a specified location (e.g., outside a
particular campus, etc.). [This] tag thus has only a single state . . . .
[indicating] a single type of restriction.” App. Br. 10. Appellant further
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

6
argues “[t]he restriction in Roese is not defined by reference to the intended
first address,” App. Br. 12, and that “Roese does not teach limiting
distribution of content data to a second destination address as a function of
the first destination address,” Reply Br. 2.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that Roese discloses a “distributor
forming said header data to additionally include additional data specifying
whether it is permissible to send a copy of the content data in the packet to a
second destination address different than the first destination address,
wherein the additional data has at least two states, respectively indicating:
(a) it is not permissible to send a copy of the content data in the packet to
any second destination address; or (b) it is not permissible to send a copy of
the content data in the packet to any second destination address except to a
second destination address within a domain that also includes the first
destination address; and wherein . . . restriction on potential redistribution of
the content is defined by reference to the intended first address,” as recited
in claim 4?
Analysis
The Examiner finds that Roese, which is directed to location-based
access control in a data network, discloses the disputed recitations because
Roese discloses a tag used for generating a packet with additional data for
placing transmission restrictions with defined boundaries such as a present
device, a room, a campus, etc. See Ans. 4 – 5 (citing, e.g., Roese ¶¶ [0115] –
[0117] and fig. 6). In particular, the Examiner finds that the different defined
boundaries correspond to additional data multiple states, where (1) the
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

7
restriction to a “present device” discloses that “it is not permissible to send a
copy of the content data in the packet to any second destination address” and
(2) the restriction of a “room,” “building,” “campus,” etc. discloses that “it is
not permissible to send a copy of the content data in the packet to any
second destination address except to a second destination address within a
domain that also includes the first destination address.” See Ans. 4 and 16.
The Examiner finds that these restrictions on the potential redistribution of
the content are defined by reference to the intended first address (i.e., either
to a particular device or to a domain that includes a particular device). See
Ans. 5.
We agree with the Examiner that Roese’s tag, by providing for
different levels of copying restrictions, discloses at least two different states.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the restriction to a “present
device” restricts packet content data from being copied to a second
destination address (i.e., to a device having a second destination address).
Further, the Examiner correctly finds that the other disclosed restrictions of
Roese, such as a “room,” “building,” or “campus,” represent expanding
domains, encompassing the “present device.” See Ans. 16. Thus, we agree
with the Examiner that these other disclosed restrictions restrict packet
content data to second destination addresses within a domain that also
includes the first destination address (i.e., that encompasses the “present
device”). We also agree with the Examiner that, since the restrictions are
defined with respect to a “present device” or to a domain that encompasses
the “present device,” the restriction on potential redistribution of content is
defined by reference to an intended first address (i.e., the address of the
“present device”). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Roese
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

8
discloses “distributor forming said header data to additionally include
additional data specifying whether it is permissible to send a copy of the
content data in the packet to a second destination address different than the
first destination address, wherein the additional data has at least two states,
respectively indicating: (a) it is not permissible to send a copy of the content
data in the packet to any second destination address; or (b) it is not
permissible to send a copy of the content data in the packet to any second
destination address except to a second destination address within a domain
that also includes the first destination address; and wherein . . . restriction on
potential redistribution of the content is defined by reference to the intended
first address,” as recited in claim 4.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, and dependent claims 7 – 10
and 30, with respect to this issue. Appellant makes similar arguments with
respect to claim 11. App. Br. 16. For the reasons discussed above, we also
do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 11, and dependent claims 13 – 18 and 31, with respect to
this issue.
ISSUE 2
Appellant argues that an interpretation of claim 4 “that somehow
makes the user in the home also the claimed ‘distributor’ is too tortured to be
sustained.” App. Br. 11.
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

9
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that Roese discloses claim 4’s
preamble recitation of a “method of providing entertainment content from a
distributor to a home”?
Analysis
The Examiner correctly finds that:
the role of the distributor is not defined by the claim language
to occur at a location that is necessarily separate from the home.
No supported reasoning is provided by the Appellant as to why
the user at the home is entirely incapable of forming packet
header data with the additional data. Nothing in the art would
be understood by a person having ordinary skill in the art that
would prevent a user in conjunction with the use of a computer
at the home from creating packet headers from typical
interactions with the Internet.
Ans. 17; see also Fin. Rej. 2.
We agree with the Examiner that the claim recitations do not preclude
the distributor from being within the home to which content is distributed.
Moreover, preamble recitations generally do not limit the claims unless the
recitations recite essential structure or steps, or unless the recitations are
necessary to give life, meaning, and vitality to the claims. Am. Med. Sys.,
Inc. v. Biolitec, Inc., 618 F.3d 1354, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The disputed
recitation does not affect the steps of the claimed invention (i.e., “the
distributor forming said header data to additionally include additional data
. . .”) and is not necessary to give meaning to the claim. Thus, even though
we agree with the Examiner that the limitation is disclosed by the reference,
Appellant cannot show error in the Examiner’s rejection by arguing that
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

10
Roese fails to disclose claim 4’s preamble recitation of a “method of
providing entertainment content from a distributor to a home.”
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, and dependent claims 7 – 10
and 30, with respect to this issue.
ISSUE 3
Appellant argues that “claim 4 specifies that the domain comprises
networked devices ‘associated with a single family.’ Again, Roese has no
such teaching.” App. Br. 12.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that Roese discloses “wherein said
domain comprises networked devices associated with a single family,” as
recited in claim 4?
Analysis
The Examiner finds that Roese, by disclosing that “exchanging the
content may be limited to within the domain of [a] single family such as any
network devices within a campus,” discloses a domain that comprises
networked devices associated with a single family. See Ans. 5. The
Examiner also finds that the Specification does not “define ‘family’ to have
any meaning other than a common definition.” See Ans. 17. As such, we
agree with the Examiner that a “single family,” given a broad but reasonable
interpretation, includes “any group of related things,” such as all devices
networked within the boundaries of a campus. See Ans. 18.
Appellant argues that “[t]he term ‘domain’ already connotes a group
of related things. Interpreting ‘a single family’ to mean nothing more than
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

11
‘any group of related things’ renders the ‘single family’ limitation
redundant, and thus meaningless.” Reply Br. 4. However, Appellant does not
provide sufficient persuasive evidence that a domain is limited to a group of
related things, nor does the Specification provide a special definition for
“domain.” Thus, we find that a domain, given a broad but reasonable
interpretation encompasses any composition or aggregation of things, related
or unrelated. Here, the Examiner’s interpretation of “a single family” as a
group of related things provides additional meaning by limiting the claimed
domain to a composition or aggregation of related network devices, such as
those networked within the boundaries of a campus. Therefore, we agree
with the Examiner that Roese, which defines restrictions such as a “room,”
“building,” or “campus,” discloses “wherein said domain comprises
networked devices associated with a single family,” as recited in claim 4.
See Ans. 5 (citing Roese ¶ [0115]).
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, and dependent claims 7 – 10
and 30, with respect to this issue. Appellant makes similar arguments with
respect to claims 9, 13, and 16. See App. Br. 15, 16, and 18. For the reasons
discussed above, we also do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9, 13, and 16, with respect to this
issue.
ISSUE 4
With respect to claim 7, Appellant argues that the relied-upon
disclosures in Roese “concern restricting network log-ins based on a user’s
GPS- or other location-authenticated information. They do not concern re-
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

12
distribution of entertainment content from an intended destination address to
a second address.” App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that Roese discloses “the additional
data includes a field signaling that copying of data in said packet to said
second destination address should be: (a) permitted if the second physical
location is physically proximate to the first physical location; and
(b) prohibited if the second physical location is physically remote from the
first physical location,” as recited in claim 7?
Analysis
The Examiner finds that Roese, by describing a location limitation in
terms of physical location, discloses the claimed field signaling whether a
copying of data is permitted or prohibited based on whether a second
physical location is physically proximate to or remote from a first physical
location. See Ans. 5 (citing Roese ¶¶ [0100] – [0103]). The Examiner
acknowledges that “a small portion of the cited paragraphs of Roese does
explain that logins are an expanded feature of the authentication/location
server’s location database.” Ans. 18. However, the Examiner identifies
additional disclosures as providing more detailed explanations showing that
Roese discloses the claimed field. See id. (citing Roese ¶¶ [0096] – [0099]).
Appellant argues that the additional disclosures cited “do not teach
that copying of data in a packet should be permitted only if the destination
physical location is physically proximate to the first physical location.”
Reply Br. 5. However, Roese discloses that “[i]f an attempt is made to
access [sensitive] information from what is otherwise an authenticated
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

13
device, that information or file may nevertheless be destroyed if the
authenticated device is not at a specified location or region.” Roese
¶ [0096]. Roese further discloses that “system 100 may be programmed to
deny access . . . upon request from a network entry device, or coming
through an intermediate device that is located outside of a specified region.”
Id. That is, Roese discloses restricting the copying of data (prohibiting
access) if a second physical location (the location of an intermediate device)
is physically remote from the first physical location (the location of the
network entry device). Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that
Roese discloses “the additional data includes a field signaling that copying
of data in said packet to said second destination address should be: (a)
permitted if the second physical location is physically proximate to the first
physical location; and (b) prohibited if the second physical location is
physically remote from the first physical location,” as recited in claim 7.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7, and dependent claims 8 and 9,
with respect to this issue. Appellant makes similar arguments with respect to
claim 14. See App. Br. 16 – 17. For the reasons discussed above, we also do
not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 14, and dependent claims 16 and 17, with respect to this
issue.
ISSUE 5
With respect to claim 8, Appellant argues that “Roese’s Figs. 1 and 8
have no teachings about a common domain.” App. Br. 14.
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

14
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that Roese discloses “wherein the first
and second destination addresses are within a common domain,” as recited
in claim 8?
Analysis
The Examiner finds that in the campus boundary example of Roese,
“the first and second devices that are ‘verified and authenticated’ are in a
common ‘domain’, or within a group of networked computers.” Ans. 19
(citing Roese fig. 8).
Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously “conflates network
address domains and physical locations.” Reply Br. 6. In particular,
Appellant argues that “[t]he claimed ‘common domain’ refers to a network
address-sense of the term,” Reply Br. 5—that a physical location, such as a
campus boundary does not anticipate a network address domain, Reply Br.
6. However, we agree with the Examiner that the Specification “supplies no
definition for ‘common domain.’” Ans. 19. Furthermore, Appellant does not
provide sufficient persuasive evidence that the claimed domain is limited to
a network address domain. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that a broad
but reasonable interpretation of addresses within a “common domain”
includes the addresses of devices within a defined boundary.
Roese discloses a network that is location-aware. See Roese ¶ [0129]
and fig. 8. The connection points of devices are used to determine the
locations of devices in the system. See Roese ¶ [0134]. Thus, Roese
discloses devices (first and second addresses) in a common domain (within a
defined boundary of a location-aware network). Therefore, we agree with
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

15
the Examiner that Roese discloses “wherein the first and second destination
addresses are within a common domain,” as recited in claim 8.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8, with respect to this issue.
Appellant makes similar arguments with respect to claim 15. See App. Br.
17. For the reasons discussed above, we also do not find Appellant’s
arguments persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, with
respect to this issue.
ISSUE 6
With respect to claim 17, Appellant argues that “Roese’s firewall is a
way to enforce location-based restrictions determined by the ‘location
aware’ features of his system.” App. Br. 18. Appellant argues that “Roese
does not – in whole or in part – use a firewall to define a geographical
boundary, across which certain content should not pass.” Reply Br. 8.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that Roese discloses “determining
whether the second physical location is physically remote from the first
physically location by reference to whether the second destination address is
served by a common firewall with the first destination address,” as recited in
claim 17?
Analysis
The Examiner correctly finds that Roese “describes combining the use
of a firewall with the physical locations of the devices, where it states a
firewall makes determination of packets into and out of a network.” Ans. 7
(citing Roese ¶ [0098]). In particular, Roese discloses that “[f]irewalls (e.g.,
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

16
140 (FIG. 8)) also provide a technique for network usage regulation.
Firewalls are primarily computer programs designed to analyze packets and,
from that analysis, make a determination as to whether packet transmission
into or out of the network is permitted.” Roese ¶ [0098] (emphasis added).
Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, Roese’s firewalls, by establishing which
packet transmissions cross into or out of a location-aware network, define
the location-aware network’s boundary. Id. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that Roese discloses “determining whether the second physical
location is physically remote from the first physically location by reference
to whether the second destination address is served by a common firewall
with the first destination address,” as recited in claim 17.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 17, with respect to this issue.
Appellant makes similar arguments with respect to claim 1. See App. Br. 19.
For the reasons discussed above, we also do not find Appellant’s arguments
persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, with respect to
this issue.
ISSUE 7
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that the cited portions of
Roese lack “any teaching of single-bit flags.” App. Br. 20. Appellant further
argues “that the construction being implicitly argued by the Office (e.g., that
all data representations are a series of single bit flags) renders the ‘single-bit
flags’ limitation meaningless.” Reply Br. 8.
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

17
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that Roese teaches or suggests
“determining whether an IP packet should be regarded as conveying content
that should not cross said boundary, by reference to one or more single-bit
flags included in the header data of said packet,” as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
As discussed above, the Examiner correctly finds that Roese describes
the use of tags that establish boundary restrictions. See also Ans. 9 (citing
Roese ¶ [0115] – [0118] and fig. 6). The Examiner further finds that the
representation of restriction information using one or more bits teaches or
suggests the claimed “one or more single-bit flags,” as broadly recited. See
Ans. 23. Appellant does not persuasively distinguish between bits
representing boundary restriction tags and one or more single-bit flags.
Furthermore, the location restrictions represented by a tag provide
additional restriction details that teach or suggest one or more single-bit
flags. For example, Roese teaches that “[t]he tag may be configured either to
deny opening (step 620a) of the transmitted data at an unauthorized location,
or to destroy (step 620b) the data when it is determined that the data is in an
unauthorized location.” Roese ¶ [0116]. In other words, Roese distinguishes
between data that may cross a boundary, but must not be accessible outside
that boundary, and data that may not cross a boundary, and must be
destroyed if it were to cross that boundary. The distinction between denying-
access-to versus destroying data teaches or suggests one or more single-bit
flags. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Roese teaches or suggests
“determining whether an IP packet should be regarded as conveying content
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

18
that should not cross said boundary, by reference to one or more single-bit
flags included in the header data of said packet,” as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, with respect to this issue.
ISSUE 8
With respect to claim 1, Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in
relying on the combined teachings and suggestions of Roese and Levy ’899
because the Examiner’s “rationale for the combination presumes that the
content is already watermarked,” but Roese does not teach a watermark. See
App. Br. 21; see also Reply Br. 9 – 10.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Roese and
Levy ’899 teaches or suggests “wherein said one or more flag bits are related
to the payload of a watermark in the content data,” as recited in claim 1?
Analysis
The Examiner acknowledges that “Roese does not explicitly state
placing the additional data as a packet header containing flag bits being
‘related to the payload of a watermark in the content.’” Ans. 9. Instead, the
Examiner relies on Levy ’899 to teach or suggest header information
pertaining to a watermark payload. See id. We agree with the Examiner that
Appellant cannot show error in the Examiner’s rejection by attacking Roese
alone, since the rejection relies on the combined teaching and suggestions of
Roese and Levy ’899. See Ans. 23.
Furthermore, Levy ’899 teaches that a “watermark signal may be
decoded and re-encoded in the individual packets, or re-encoded after the
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

19
signal is re-combined. The re-encoding is effected by transferring a
watermarking command in the header of the packets specifying the
watermark payload and watermark embedding protocol to be used in
the re-combined signal.” Levy ’899 ¶ [0035]. That is, Levy ’899 teaches or
suggests packet header data related to the payload of a watermark in the
content data. See also Levy ’899 ¶ [0016] (“Transmarking may include
converting an out of band identifier like a tag in a header/footer to
a watermark or vice versa”). Thus, the Examiner properly relies on Levy
’899 to show that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill
in the art to use the payload of a watermark in content data as the source for
packet header data. The modification of Roese’s location-based access
control using tags with transmission restrictions to use watermark payloads
as sources for those transmission restrictions merely represents the
combination of familiar elements to yield predictable results. See KSR Int’l,
Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Roese and Levy ’899 teaches or suggests
“wherein said one or more flag bits are related to the payload of a watermark
in the content data,” as recited in claim 1
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, with respect to this issue.
Appellant makes similar arguments with respect to claims 10, 18, and 25.
See App. Br. 23 – 25. For the reasons discussed above, we also do not find
Appellant’s arguments persuasive of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 10, 18, and 25, and dependent claims 26 – 28, with respect to this
issue.
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

20
ISSUE 9
With respect to claim 25, Appellant argues that “Roese does not teach
a home networking device that refuses to transmit packets ‘to a different
network if the included data indicates that the video entertainment should
not be redistributed from the consumer’s home network.’” App. Br. 24. In
particular, Appellant argues that “[t]he only reference to a ‘home’ in Roese
is as a recipient of content – not as a redistributor.” Reply Br. 10.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that Roese teaches or suggests
“refusing to transmit the packets through the networking device to a
different network if the included data indicates that the video entertainment
should not be redistributed from the consumer’s home network,” as recited
in claim 25?
Analysis
The Examiner correctly finds that Roese teaches a firewall that refuses
to redistribute content from a domain. See Ans. 25 (citing Roese fig. 8). In
particular, Roese teaches the use of a firewall to determine “whether packet
transmission into or out of the network is permitted.” Roese ¶ [0098]. The
Examiner also correctly finds that domains taught or suggested by Roese
include, for example, “a room, building (or house), or campus.” Ans. 25; see
also Roese ¶ [0115]. We agree with the Examiner that Roese’s teaching of a
building as a domain teaches or suggests a home (a type of building) as a
domain. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Roese teaches or
suggests “refusing to transmit the packets through the networking device to a
different network if the included data indicates that the video entertainment
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

21
should not be redistributed from the consumer’s home network,” as recited
in claim 25.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 25, and of dependent claims 26 –
28, with respect to this issue.
ISSUE 10
With respect to claim 26, Appellant argues that Levy ’899 fails to
teach or suggest the parent claim 25 requirement that extracting restriction
information from packet header data precede including data related to the
restriction in header portions of each of the claimed IP packets. See App. Br.
25; see also Reply Br. 12.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Roese and
Levy ’899 teaches or suggests “wherein the ascertaining includes extracting
restriction information from header data conveyed with the video
entertainment,” as recited in claim 26?
Analysis
The Examiner finds that “Roese does not explicitly state ‘extracting
restriction information from header data conveyed with the video
entertainment . . . and ‘including data indicating said ascertained restriction
information in header portions of each said IP packets.’” Ans. 11. Instead the
Examiner relies on Levy ’899 to teach or suggest such extraction. See id.
(citing, e.g., Levy ’899 ¶¶ [0015] and [0023]). We agree with the Examiner
that Levy ’899 teaches or suggests extracting restriction information from
header data. In particular, Levy ’899 teaches that “[t]ransmarking may
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

22
include converting an out of band identifier like a tag in a header/footer to a
watermark or vice versa.” Levy ’899 ¶ [0016]. That is, header content can
contain extractable and transmittable restriction information. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Roese and Levy ’899
teaches or suggests “wherein the ascertaining includes extracting restriction
information from header data conveyed with the video entertainment,” as
recited in claim 26.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26, with respect to this issue.
ISSUE 11
With respect to claim 28, Appellant argues that Levy ’899 fails to
teach or suggest the parent claim 25 requirement that discerning the
restriction information by reference to data decoded from digital watermark
information hidden within the video entertainment precede including data
related to the restriction in header portions of each of the claimed IP packets.
See App. Br. 26; see also Reply Br. 13.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Roese and
Levy ’899 teaches or suggests “wherein the ascertaining includes discerning
the restriction information by reference to data decoded from digital
watermark information hidden within the video entertainment,” as recited in
claim 28?
Analysis
The Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 28 are similar to the
Examiner’s findings with respect to claim 26, discussed above. See Ans. 11.
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

23
In addition, the Examiner finds that “Roese does not explicitly state . . .
‘discerning the restriction information by reference to data decoded from
digital watermark information hidden within the video entertainment.’” Id.
Instead the Examiner relies on Levy ’899 to teach or suggest such
discerning. See id. (citing, e.g., Levy ’899 ¶¶ [0022] – [0023]). We agree
with the Examiner that Levy ’899 teaches or suggests discerning restriction
information from digital watermark information. As discussed above, Levy
’899 teaches that “[t]ransmarking may include converting an out of band
identifier like a tag in a header/footer to a watermark or vice versa.” Levy
’899 ¶ [0016]. That is, watermark content can contain discernable restriction
information. Levy also explicitly teaches detecting and decoding a
watermark in a watermarked signal. See Levy ’899 ¶¶ [0022] – [0023] and
fig. 1. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Roese
and Levy ’899 teaches or suggests “wherein the ascertaining includes
discerning the restriction information by reference to data decoded from
digital watermark information hidden within the video entertainment,” as
recited in claim 28.
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28, with respect to this issue.
ISSUE 12
With respect to claim 27, Appellant argues “the claim requires that the
restriction information is included in header portions of the IP packets. As
such, it is not hidden. Since it is not hidden, the Final Rejection provides no
indication why an artisan would have turned to Levy ’899 for watermark
teachings.” App. Br. 27. Appellant further argues that “the rationale for
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

24
combining Levy ’844 with Roese and Levy ’899 in the claimed manner is
impermissibly based on hindsight, rather than the required ‘articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning.’” Reply Br. 13.
Issue
Did the Examiner err in concluding that it would have been obvious to
an artisan of ordinary skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of
Roese, Levy ’899, and Levy ’844 to teach or suggest the recitations of claim
27?
Analysis
Appellant’s argument that “the claim requires that the restriction
information is included in header portions of the IP packets,” App. Br. 27, is
not commensurate with the recitations of claim 27, which are directed to
limiting the ascertaining to include “wherein the ascertaining includes
obtaining restriction information from a remote repository associated with
the video entertainment.” Furthermore, the Examiner makes specific
findings showing that it would have been obvious to combine the teachings
and suggestions of Roese, Levy ’899, and Levy ’844 to teach or suggest the
recitations of claim 27. See, e.g., Ans. 12 – 13. Appellant does not provide
sufficient persuasive arguments or evidence to rebut these findings or to
support the conclusory statement that the Examiner erroneously relies on
impermissible hindsight reasoning. Therefore, we find the Examiner did not
err in concluding that it would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary
skill to combine the teachings and suggestions of Roese, Levy ’899, and
Levy ’844 to teach or suggest the recitations of claim 27.
Appeal 2010-007767
Application 10/797,920

25
Accordingly, we do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27, with respect to this issue.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 4, 7 – 11, 13 –
18, and 25 – 31.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

tj