Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 10667329"

See other formats


PATENT 

Attorney Docket: 57132.000008 

REMARKS 

These remarks are responsive to the Non-Final Office Action ("Office Action") mailed 
on April 7, 2008. In this response, claims 24-26 have been added. No new matter has been 
added. Entry of the addition of claims 24-26 is respectfully requested. Applicant also 
respectfully requests reconsideration of the rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 11-13 and 17-18 for at 
least the following reasons. 

I. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1. 5-7. 1 1-13 AND 17- IS 

On page 3 of the Office Action, claims 1, 5-7, 11-13, and 17-18 are currently rejected 

under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,289,389 to Kikinis 

("Kikinis") in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2002/0106086 to Kamiya et al. 

("Kamiya"). This rejection is hereby respectfully traversed. 

Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the Patent Office bears the burden of establishing a prima facie 
case of obviousness. In re Fine . 837 F.2d 1071, 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1988). There are four separate 
factual inquiries to consider in making an obviousness determination: (1) the scope and content 
of the prior art; (2) the level of ordinary skill in the field of the invention; (3) the differences 
between the claimed invention and the prior art; and (4) the existence of any objective evidence, 
or "secondary considerations," of non-obviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co. . 383 U.S. 1,17- 
18 (1966); see also KSR Infl Co. v. Teleflex Inc. . 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). An "expansive and 
flexible approach" should be applied when determining obviousness based on a combination of 
prior art references. KSR . 127 S. Ct. at 1739. However, a claimed invention combining multiple 
known elements is not rendered obvious simply because each element was known independently 
in the prior art. Id. at 1741. Rather, there must still be some "reason that would have prompted" 



9 



Application No. 10/667,329 



Attorney Docket No. 57132.000008 



a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine the elements in the specific way that he or she 
did. Id.; In re Icon Health & Fitness. Inc. 496 F.3d 1374, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Also, 
modification of a prior art reference may be obvious only if there exists a reason that would have 
prompted a person of ordinary skill to make the change. KSR . 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41. 

Regarding claim 1, the Examiner asserts that Kikinis discloses that encrypted data and 
key are transmitted via modem and satellite, respectively. Applicant respectfully disagrees. 
Applicant respectfully submits that nowhere does Kikinis disclose, or even suggest, that the key 
is transmitted via a satellite system to a user. In contrast, Kikinis specifically discloses that 
decryption key is "sent back to the user via digital link 53 of FIG. 1 to proxy-server 29 and back 
through digital link 20, PSTN cloud 15, analog link 18 through analog modem 17 and into the 
users PC." See, e.g., column 6, lines 33-37. Therefore, Kikinis discloses that the decryption key 
is transmitted through a public switch telephone network and not "via a satellite delivery 
system," as presently claimed. In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that it is the data 
packets that are handled individually and can be sent by land and satellite at the same time, and 
not the decryption key. 

Also, the Examiner asserts, and Applicant agrees, that Kikinis fails to disclose, or even 
suggest, the steps of transmitting the first set of data packet "at a first transmission time via the 
Internet," and transmitting the second set of data packets "at a second transmission time via the 
satellite delivery system, wherein the second transmission time is different from the first 
transmission time," as presently claimed. Instead, the Examiner relies on Kamiya to remedy the 
deficiencies of Kikinis. Specifically, the Examiner asserts that it would have been obvious to 
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to employ the teachings of 



10 



Application No. 10/667,329 



Attorney Docket No. 57132.000008 



Kamiya within the system of Kikinis. Applicant respectfully disagrees. Applicant respectfully 
submits that the Examiner fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness, in particular, the 
Kamiya teaches away from Kikinis. Applicant submits that Kikinis discloses a data delivery 
system using an Asymmetric Point to Point Protocol (APPP), wherein PPP (e.g., data link 
protocol used to establish a direct connection between two nodes) is used with a selective multi- 
link capability installed in proxy-server 29, thereby giving it an ability to select from alternative 
routes back to the user, based on available information at the time the decision is made. See, 
e.g., column 5, lines 13-23. In contrast, Kamiya discloses a data delivery system using a point to 
multipoint delivery network suitable for delivering large quantities of data at high speed in 
broadband environment. See, e.g., paragraph [0075]. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the 
art at the time the invention was made would NOT have utilized the point to multipoint delivery 
network of Kamiya for the point to point data delivery network of Kikinis. 

Further, Applicant respectfully submits that Kikinis discloses that "once the encryption 
process has taken place and the key has been sent via land, the data packet proceeds through 
digital link 55 to satellite sending dish 45 where it is broadcast to home receiving dish 23." See, 
e.g., column 6, lines 36-41. Therefore, Kikinis discloses delivering the key and the data 
simultaneously via different networks. In contrast, Kamiya discloses that content and key 
information are delivered at different times, for example, hours or days apart. See, e.g., 
paragraph [0023]. Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was 
made would NOT have combined transmission of content and key at different times of Kamiya 
for the simultaneous transmission of content and key of Kikinis. 



11 



Application No. 10/667,329 



Attorney Docket No. 57132.000008 



Moreover, Applicant respectfully submits that Kikinis discloses an Internet delivery 
system having a modem-connected land based Internet connection through a public-switched 
telephone network (PSTN), and a satellite transmission system. See, e.g., column 3, lines 46-50. 
In contrast, Kamiya discloses a high-speed multipoint delivery network and a storage medium of 
magnetically readable medium, an optically readable medium, and a semiconductor memory 
delivered by postal service, home delivery service, or other conventional delivery services. 
Therefore, one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made would NOT 
have utilized the postal service of Kamiya for the public switched telephone network (PSTN) of 
Kikinis. Accordingly, is it respectfully submitted that claim 1 is allowable over Kikinis in view 
of Kamiya. 

Regarding claims 5 and 6, these claims are dependent upon independent claim 1. Thus, 
since independent claim 1 should be allowable as discussed above, claims 5 and 6 should also be 
allowable at least by virtue of their dependency on independent claim L Moreover, these claims 
recite additional features which are not disclosed, or even suggested, by the cited references 
taken either alone or in combination. 

Regarding claims 7 and 13, these claims recite subject matter related to claim 1. Thus, 
the arguments set forth above with respect to claim 1 are equally applicable to claims 7 and 13. 
Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that claims 7 and 13 are allowable over Kikinis in view 
of Kamiya for the same reasons as set forth above with respect to claim 1. 

Regarding claims 11,12, 17, and 18, these claims are dependent upon independent claims 
7 and 13. Thus, since independent claims 7 and 13 should be allowable as discussed above, 
claims 11, 12, 17, and 18 should also be allowable at least by virtue of their dependency on 



12 



Application No. 10/667,329 



Attorney Docket No. 57132.000008 



independent claims 7 and 13. Moreover, these claims recite additional features which are not 
disclosed, or even suggested, by the cited references taken either alone or in combination. 

In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully requested that the aforementioned anticipation 
rejection of claims 1, 5-7, 1 1-13, and 17-18 be withdrawn. 



13 



Application No. 10/667,329 



Attorney Docket No. 57132.000008 



CONCLUSION 

Applicant respectfully submits that the application is in condition for allowance and 
respectfully requests a notice of allowance for the pending claims. Should the Examiner 
determine that any further action is necessary to place this application in condition for allowance, 
the Examiner is kindly requested and encouraged to telephone Applicant's undersigned 
representative at the number listed below. 

It is believed that no fees are due in connection with this response. However, if any fees 
are determined to be due, the Commissioner is hereby authorized to charge these fees to the 
undersigned's Deposit Account No. 50-0206. 



Respectfully submitted, 
HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 




Yisun Song 

Registration No. 44,487 



Hunton & Williams LLP 
Intellectual Property Department 
1900 K Street, N.W. Suite 1200 
Washington, DC 20006-1109 
(202) 955-1500 (telephone) 
(202) 778-2201 (facsimile) 

Dated: July 28, 2008 



14