Ex Parte Wachtfogel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 13, 2013

11272344 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2013)

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. 11/272,344 11/10/2005 Reuven Wachtfogel 7251/95665 1627 24628 7590 08/13/2013 Husch Blackwell LLP Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP Welsh & Katz 120 S RIVERSIDE PLAZA 22ND FLOOR CHICAGO, IL 60606 EXAMINER GUIRGUIS, MICHAEL M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/13/2013 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 REUVEN WACHTFOGEL and YAIR MIRSKY ____________ Appeal 2011-009088 Application 11/272,344 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR. and DENISE M. POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009088 Application 11/272,344 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing claims 22-36. Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to a conditional access system wherein, during playback of record scrambled content in trick mode, substitution frames are selected to reduce the number of different key periods in which a frame has to be descrambled. Generally Specification 4. Representative Claim 22. A method for processing scrambled content, the scrambled content being divided into a multiplicity of frames, the method comprising: identifying a first plurality of frames requiring descrambling from among said multiplicity of frames, each of said first plurality of frames being associated with one of a second plurality of key periods in which descrambling is to occur; choosing at least one selected key period of the second plurality of key periods; and identifying all frames requiring descrambling which are associated with said at least one selected key period and deciding not to descramble such frames and instead to descramble a frame in another one of said second plurality of key periods, thereby reducing the total number of key periods in said second plurality of key periods in which descrambling is to occur. Appeal 2010-009088 Application 11/272,344 3 Rejection on Appeal Claims 22-36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Vince (U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0228018 A1; published December 11, 2003) and Morris (U.S. Patent Number 7,046,916 B1; issued May 16, 2006). Answer 4-6. Issue Do Vince and Morris in combination teach refraining from descrambling any frame identified as requiring descrambling, refraining from descrambling any frames if they are associated with a selected key period and choosing instead to descramble a frame in another key period? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants argue that the references do not suggest nor disclose, either alone or in combination: (1) “refraining from descrambling any frames identified as requiring descrambling;” (2) “refraining from descrambling any frames if they are associated with a selected key period;” and (3) “descrambling a frame in another key period.” Appeal Brief 7. It is noted the invention is directed to a conditional access system wherein the playback Appeal 2010-009088 Application 11/272,344 4 during trick mode is modified by the use of substituted frames to reduce the number of different key periods in which a frame has to be descrambled. See generally Specification 2-8. Independent claims 22, 29, and 36 do not recite limitations modifying the descrambling of the data stream during the trick mode that are patentably distinguishable over the Vince/Morris combination. The Examiner finds: The limitations “refraining from descrambling any frames identified as requiring descrambling” and “refraining from descrambling any frames if they are associated with a selected key period” are taught because all the frames in fig. 3 [of Vince] must be decrypted in normal play since - as taught by the combination - the frames in file (II) are frames from file (I). Frames 311,313, 315, 317, and 319 identified by key periods K2, K4, K6, K8 and K10 will be selected/chosen to be skipped by virtue of the fast-forward function thus not decrypted. The limitation “descrambling a frame in another key period” is taught because using the fast-forwarding function will result in, for example, frame 320 - which belongs to K1 - being decrypted instead of selected frames from 311-319. Answer 8. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. The scope of Appellants’ independent claims is limited to merely a method of descrambling scrambled content without any specificity to modifying the descrambling during the trick mode functionality. Essentially, this is what the combination of Vince and Morris discloses: conventional scrambled content wherein the content is selectively descrambled while in trick mode. Answer 4-6. Once the Examiner has Appeal 2010-009088 Application 11/272,344 5 satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellants to present evidence and/or arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Since Appellants did not particularly point out errors in the Examiner’s reasoning to persuasively rebut the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness, the rejection of independent claims 22, 29, and 36, as well as dependent claims 23-28 and 30-35, is therefore sustained. DECISION The obviousness rejection of claims 22-36 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)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED Vsh