Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 10667329"

See other formats


IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 



Application Number : 10/667,329 Confirmation No.: 1653 

Applicant : John HANE 

Filed : September 23, 2003 

Title : SYSTEM, METHOD AND SOFTWARE APPLICATION FOR 

SECURE COMMUNICATION 

TC/ArtUnit : 2136 

Examiner: : Eleni A. Shiferaw 

Docket No. : 57132.000008 

Customer No. : 21967 



Mail Stop Appeal Brief-Patents 
Commissioner for Patents 
P.O. Box 1450 
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450 



APPEAL BRIEF 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667.329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 



TABLE OF CONTENTS 

I. INTRODUCTION 1 

II. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST 1 

III. RELATED APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES 1 

IV. STATUS OF CLAIMS 1 

V. STATUS OF AMENDMENTS 1 

VI. SUMMARY OF CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER 1 

A. Summary of the Invention 2 

B. Embodiments of the Claimed Invention 3 

1 . Explanation of Independent Claim 24 3 

2. Explanation of Independent Claim 25 4 

3. Explanation of Independent Claim 26 5 

VII. GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVD2WED ON APPEAL 6 

VIII. ARGUMENT 6 

A. Brief Description of Art Applied to the Claims 6 

1. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 6,289,389 to Kikinis 6 

2. Overview of U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2002/0106086 to 
Kamiya etal 6 

B. Summary of the Argument 7 

C. Independent Claim 24 is Patentable Over Kikinis and Kamiya 7 

1 . The Kikinis Reference Not Only Fails to Suggest Two Transmission Times 
and Channels of a Transmission Mode But Teaches Against Such a Feature ...7 

2. Kikinis Teaches Against a Combination With Kamiya 9 

3. The Office Has Failed to Consider the Claimed Inventions as a Whole 10 

4. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have No Reason to Combine Kikinis 
and Kamiya 11 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

D. Independent Claim 25 is Patentable Over Kikinis and Kamiya 12 

1. The Kikinis Reference Not Only Fails to Suggest Two Transmission Times 
and Channels of a Transmission Mode But Teaches Against Such a Feature. 13 

2. Kikinis Teaches Against a Combination With Kamiya 15 

3. The Office Has Failed to Consider the Claimed Inventions as a Whole 16 

4. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have No Reason to Combine Kikinis 
and Kamiya 16 

E. Independent Claim 26 is Patentable Over Kikinis and Kamiya 18 

1. The Kikinis Reference Not Only Fails to Suggest Two Transmission Times 
and Channels of a Transmission Mode But Teaches Against Such a Feature. 18 

2. Kikinis Teaches Against a Combination With Kamiya 2 1 

3. The Office Has Failed to Consider the Claimed Inventions as a Whole 21 

4. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have No Reason to Combine Kikinis 
and Kamiya 22 

F. The Rejection of Dependent Claims 27-32 is Improper 24 

1 . Dependent Claim 27 is Separately Patentable 24 

2. Dependent Claim 28 is Separately Patentable 24 

3. Dependent Claim 29 is Separately Patentable 24 

4. Dependent Claim 30 is Separately Patentable 24 

5. Dependent Claim 3 1 is Separately Patentable 25 

6. Dependent Claim 32 is Separately Patentable 25 

IX. CONCLUSION 26 

APPENDIX A - CLAIMS 27 

APPENDIX B - EVIDENCE 32 

APPENDIX C - RELATED PROCEEDINGS , 33 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

I. INTRODUCTION 

In response to the Notice of Panel Decision from Pre- Appeal Brief Review mailed on 
March 25, 2010 and the Final Office Action mailed November 2, 2009 ("Final Office Action"), 
rejecting pending claims 24-32, Appellant respectfully requests that the Board of Patent Appeals 
and Interferences ("Board") reconsider and withdraw the rejections of record, and allow the 
pending claims, which are attached hereto as Appendix A. 

II. REAL PARTY IN INTEREST 

The real party in interest is Xanadoo Company, the assignee of the above-referenced 
application. 

III. RELATED APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES 

There are no known related appeals or interferences. 

IV. STATUS OF CLAIMS 

Claims 1-18 have been cancelled without prejudice. 
Claims 19-23 are currently withdrawn from consideration. 
Claims 24-32 are currently pending in this application. 

Claims 24-32 were rejected in the Final Office Action under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 
allegedly unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,289,389 to Kikinis ("Kikinis") in view of U.S. 
Patent Application Publication US 2002/0106086 to Kamiya et al. ("Kamiya"). The rejection of 
claims 24-32 is hereby appealed. 

V. STATUS OF AMENDMENTS 

No amendments to the claims have been filed subsequent to the Final Office Action. 

VI. SUMMARY OF CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER 

A concise explanation of each of the independent claims is provided, including references 

- I - 



I .S. l-\ilvnl /\pj>lkali;.Hi N... lO/Wv'.^j" 
Atlorney Docket No: 57 132.000008 

to exemplary portions of the specification and figures. The references to the specification and 

figures refer to the specification as filed on September 23, 2003. 

A. Summary of the Invention 

An embodiment of the present invention relates generally to a system, method and 
software application for securely transmitting information. More particular, an embodiment of 
the present invention relates to a system, method and software application which allows for the 
secure transmission of information using multiple transmission methods to enhance security and 
efficiency. See, e.g., page 1, lines 9-13. According to an exemplary embodiment, first and 
second sets of data may be transmitted via the Internet. The first set of data may be addressed to 
follow a first transmission path and the second set of data may be addressed to follow a second 
transmission path. In accordance with this preferred embodiment, the first and second addresses 
may be automatically attached to the packetized data so that the first and second sets of data 
appear to potential hackers and packet sniffing software as belonging to two distinct messages. 
See, e.g., page 6, lines 1-7. 

Also, a first set of data may be transmitted via a first frequency or channel and a second 
set of data may be transmitted via a second frequency or channel. In accordance with this 
embodiment, a wireless computer network, such as a network transmitting data via Wi-Fi 
transmission protocols, may transmit the first set of data on a first Wi-Fi frequency and the 
second set of data on a second Wi-Fi frequency. See, e.g., page 6, lines 8-13. 

Further, a first set of data may be transmitted via a first transmission system at a first time 
and a second set of data may be transmitted by either the same transmission system or a second 
transmission system at a later time (i.e. after a selected time delay in the transmission). See, e.g., 
page 6, lines 14-17. 

-2- 



T.'.S. r\,k:m Applicai'.nn N.. I0/O07. 
Attorney Docket No: 57 1 32.000008 

B. Embodiments of the Claimed Invention 

\. Explanation of Independent Claim 24 

According to an embodiment of the present invention, claim 24 is directed to a method 
for requesting and securely receiving data from the Internet, said method comprising the steps of: 
receiving a request for data; (Figure 3, step 56) {See, e.g., column 9, lines 12-23) 
collecting data in response to said request; (Figure 3, step 58) {See, e.g., page 10, lines 9- 

14) 

packetizing said collected data into at least two sets of data packets, wherein a first set of 
data packets comprises encrypted data and a second set of data packets comprises a key for 
decoding said encrypted data; (Figure 3, steps 62 and 64) {See, e.g., page 10, lines 15-19; page 1, 
lines 22-24) 

selecting and addressing said first set of data packets for transmission at a first 
transmission time via a first channel of a transmission mode at a first frequency, and 
automatically attaching a first address to said first set of data packets; (Figure 3, step 66) {See, 
e.g., page 10, lines 19-21; page 6, lines 1-7) 

selecting and addressing said second set of data packets for transmission at a second 
transmission time via a second channel of the transmission mode at a second frequency, wherein 
the second transmission time is different from the first transmission time and the second 
frequency is different from the first frequency; (Figure 3, step 68) {See, e.g., page 10, lines 21- 
23; page 6, lines 1-7; page 6, lines 8-13; page 6, lines 14-17) 

transmitting said first set of data packets via said first channel; and (Figure 3, step 70) 
{See, e.g., page 6, lines 14-15) 

transmitting said second set of data packets via said second channel. (Figure 3, step 70) 
-3- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.OO0OO8 

(See, e.g., page 6, lines 14-15) 

2. Explanation of Independent Claim 25 

According to an embodiment of the present invention, claim 25 is directed to a computer 
readable medium executing and storing a software application for enabling requesting and 
securely receiving data from the Internet, said software application comprising: 

one or more instructions for receiving a request for data; (Figure 3, step 56) (See, e.g., 
column 9, lines 12-23) 

one or more instructions for collecting data in response to said request; (Figure 3, step 58) 
(See, e.g., page 10, lines 9-14) 

one or more instructions for packetizing said collected data into at least two sets of data 
packets, wherein a first set of data packets comprises encrypted data and a second set of data 
packets comprises a key for decoding said encrypted data; (Figure 3, steps 62 and 64) (See, e.g., 
page 10, lines 15-19 and page 1, lines 22-24) 

one or more instructions for selecting and addressing said first set of data packets for 
transmission at a first transmission time via a first channel of a transmission mode at a first 
frequency, and automatically attaching a first address to said first set of data packets; (Figure 3, 
step 66) (See, e.g., page 10, lines 19-21; page 6, lines 1-7; page 6, lines 8-3 3) 

one or more instructions for selecting and addressing said second set of data packets for 
transmission at a second transmission time via a second channel of the transmission mode at a 
second frequency, wherein the second transmission time is different from the first transmission 
time and the second frequency is different from the first frequency; (Figure 3, step 68) (See, e.g., 
page 10, lines 21-23; page 6, lines 1-7; page 6, lines 8-13, page 6, lines 14-17) 

one or more instructions for transmitting said first set of data packets via said first 
-4- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

channel; and (Figure 3, step 70) (See, e.g., page 6, lines 14-15) 

one or more instructions for transmitting said second set of data packets via said second 
channel. (Figure 3, step 70) (See, e.g., page 6, lines 14-15) 

3. Explanation of Independent Claim 26 

According to an embodiment of the present invention, claim 26 is directed to a system for 
requesting and securely receiving data, said system comprising: 

a first computing element for receiving a request for data; (Figure 3, step 56) (See, e.g., 
column 9, lines 32-23) 

a second computing element for collecting data in response to said request; wherein said 
second computing element packetizes said collected data into at least two sets of data packets, 
wherein a first set of data packets comprises encrypted data and a second set of data packets 
comprises a key for decoding said encrypted data; (Figure 3, steps 58, 62, and 64) (See, e.g., 
page 10, lines 9-14; page 10, lines 15-19 and page 1, lines 22-24) 

a first transmission system for transmitting said first set of data from said second 
computing element to said first computing element at a first transmission time via a first channel 
of a transmission mode at a first frequency, and automatically attaching a first address to said 
first set of data packets; (Figure 3, step 66) (See, e.g., page 10, lines 19-21; page 6, lines 1-7; 
page 6, lines 8-13) 

a second transmission system for transmitting said second set of data from said second 
computing element to said first computing element at a second transmission time via a second 
channel of the transmission mode at a second frequency, wherein the second transmission time is 
different from the first transmission time and the second frequency is different from the first 
frequency. (Figure 3, step 68) (See, e.g., page 10, lines 21-23; page 6, lines 1-7; page 6, lines 8- 

-5- 



I S. Paten: ApplV.ui.m N.=. !0/f»f>7.;C' 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

13; page 6, lines 14-17) 

VII. GROUNDS OF REJECTION TO BE REVIEWED ON APPEAL 

The issue on appeal is whether the rejection of claims 24-32 as being allegedly 
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,289,389 to Kikinis ("Kikinis") in view of U.S. Patent 
Application Publication No. US 2002/0106086 to Kamiya et al. ("Kamiya") is improper. 

The claims each stand or fall independently. The reasons why each claim is separately 
patentable are presented in the Argument section below. 

VIII. ARGUMENT 

A. Brief Description of Art Applied to the Claims 

1. Overview of U.S. Patent No. 6,289,389 to Kikinis 

Kikinis is directed to a data delivery system having a server connected to data sources 
and adapted to transmit data to a user. See Abstract. As admitted by the Office, Kikinis makes 
no disclosure or suggestion of transmitting first set of data packets at a first transmission time 
and transmitting a second set of data packets at a second transmission time, wherein the second 
transmission time is different from the first transmission time. In fact, Kikinis teaches away 
from such a feature. Kikinis specifically teaches "it will be apparent to one with skill in the art 
that in a system of the invention whereby the user is connected to both a land route and a satellite 
route as described above, information from the same source can be sent by land and satellite at 
the same time." See e.g., column 6, lines 48-53. As transmission time of a first set of data 
packets and a second set of data packets, Kikinis teaches that they are transmitted at the same 
time. 

2. Overview of U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 2002/0106086 
to Kamiya et al. 

Kamiya is directed to a data delivery system highly resistant to misappropriation of data. 
-6- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

See Abstract. The purpose of Kamiya is to deliver digital data or content from an upstream 

system to a downstream system, wherein the upstream system performs multi-point delivery of 

encrypted digital data. See, e.g., paragraph [0006]. The Office relies on Kamiya' s discussion of 

in the case that key information and content information are transmitted over the same physical 

network, content information and key information are not delivered simultaneously. See e.g., 

paragraph [0023]. According to Kamiya, this is equivalent to delivering content and key 

information over different routes. 

B. Summary of the Argument 

The rejection of claims 24-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being allegedly unpatentable 
over Kikinis and Kamiya is improper because the combination fails to make obvious each and 
every claim limitation as recited by Appellant. 

C. Independent Claim 24 is Patentable Over Kikinis and Kamiya 

The Office Action relies on a two reference combination to address the independent 

claim 24. Each of the applied references is deficient, alone or in any combination, to properly 

address each and every claim element as recited by Appellant. Even if the two disparate 

references could be combined, as suggested by the Office, the resulting combination would 

nevertheless fail to meet the various embodiments of the claimed inventions. 

1. The Kikinis Reference Not Only Fails to Suggest Two Transmission 
Times and Channels of a Transmission Mode But Teaches Against 
Such a Feature 

Independent claim 24 recites "selecting and addressing said first set of data packets for 
transmission at a first transmission time via a first channel of a transmission mode at a first 
frequency , and automatically attaching a first address to said first set of data packets;" and 
"selecting and addressing said second set of data packets for transmission at a second 

-7- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
AlU.nn.-y N.>: 57 |V. 0!H)ii(K 

transmission time via a second channel of the transmission mode at a second frequency , 
wherein the second transmission time is different from the first transmission time and the second 
frequency is different from the first frequency." 

The combination of Kikinis and Kamiya fail to address each and every claim element as 
recited in independent claim 24. Kikinis discloses two disparate transmission modes (e.g., 
Internet and Satellite) to transmit data packets and a decryption key. In particular, Kikinis 
discloses that the data packet is appropriately tagged with an IP address for identification by 
control software running in PC 19 and transmitted via the satellite 37 . See, e.g., column 6, lines 
28-32. Also, Kikinis discloses that a decryption key may be 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. In fact, the 
Office admits, in the Response to Arguments section of the Final Office Action, that Kikinis 
discloses two different transmission paths. Thus, Kikinis discloses the transmission of data 
packets and a decryption key via two disparate transmission modes (e.g., Internet and Satellite) 
and fails to disclose, or even suggest, "selecting and addressing said first set of data packets for 
transmission at a first transmission time via a first channel of a transmission mode at a first 
frequency , and automatically attaching a first address to said first set of data packets," and 
"selecting and addressing said second set of data packets for transmission at a second 
transmission time via a second channel of the transmission mode at a second frequency , 
wherein the second transmission time is different from the first transmission time and the second 
frequency is different from the first frequency," as recited in independent claim 24. 

The Office Action admits that Kikinis fails to disclose or suggest that first data packets 
for transmission at a first transmission time and a second set of data packets for transmission at a 

-8- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

second transmission time, wherein the second transmission time is different from the first 

transmission time. See Final Office Action at page 6. In contrast to the claimed inventions, 

Kikinis discloses that it will be apparent to one with skill in the art that in a system of the 

invention whereby the user is connected to both a land route and a satellite route, information 

from the same source can be sent by land and satellite at the same time . See, e.g., column 6, 

lines 48-53. 

Moreover, Kikinis' disclosure and the claimed inventions are structurally different and 
the reason and motivation provided by the Office not only counter the disclosure of Kikinis and 
but also destroy the teachings set forth in the Kikinis disclosure. If the proposed modification 
would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then 
there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 
900, 221 USPQ 1 125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, if the proposed modification or combination 
of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, 
then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In 
re Ratti, 270 F.2d 8 10, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959). A prior art reference must be considered 
in its entirety, i.e., as a whole , including portions that would lead away from the claimed 
invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. 
Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). In this case, the proposed modification to transmit 
data packets and a decryption key at different times when Kikinis teaches that such would not be 
desired and destroys the teachings of Kikinis and is therefore improper. Thus, Appellant submits 
that the Office has failed to properly address at least this claim limitation. 

2. Kikinis Teaches Against a Combination With Kamiya 

Acknowledging the severe deficiencies of Kikinis, the Office relies on Kamiya to remedy 

-9- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57 J 32.000008 

the severe deficiencies. Appellant submits that Kikinis teaches away from Kamiya. Specifically, 
Kikinis discloses that it will be apparent to one with skill in the art that in a system of the 
invention whereby the user is connected to both a land route and a satellite route as described 
above, information from the same source can be sent by land and satellite at the same time . See 
e.g., column 6, lines 48-53. In contrast, Kamiya discloses that in case where key information and 
content information are transmitted over the same physical network , content information and key 
information are not delivered simultaneously . See, e.g., paragraph [0023]. Thus, Appellant 
submits that one skilled in the art would have no reason to combine transmission of content 
information and a decryption key at different times via the same physical network as disclosed 
by Kamiya with simultaneous transmission over disparate networks of Kikinis. 

As stated in MPEP § 2141.02, a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., 
as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L Gore & 
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 
(1984). As confirmed in MPEP § 2145, it is improper to combine references where the 
references teach away from their combination. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 

3. The Office Has Failed to Consider the Claimed Inventions as a Whole 

Appellant respectfully submits that the Office fails to consider the claimed inventions as a 
whole , and merely focuses on just the differences themselves with regard to application of the 
cited art. See MPEP §2141.02(1) and (III). Appellant further submits that the Office fails to 
consider the prior art in its entirely and merely picking and choosing selected portions for the 
alleged rejections of embodiments of the claimed inventions. Therefore, Kikinis and Kamiya, 
either alone or in combination, fail to render the claimed inventions as obvious. Accordingly, 
Appellant submits that the Office has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness for at 

-10- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

least independent claim 24. 

As stated in MPEP § 2143.03, to establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, 

all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 98 !, 

180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). That is, "[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in judging the 

patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, 

496 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, the Appellant respectfully 

requests the reversal of the rejection of independent claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 

4. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have No Reason to Combine 
Kikinis and Kamiya 

The Office has failed to set forth a proper statement of motivation to address the admitted 
deficiencies. There is nothing in Kikinis that suggests any desirability or any need to transmit 
data packets and a decryption key at different times. There is simply no reason for one skilled in 
the art to modify Kikinis as suggested by the Office. Kamiya fails to provide any reason to 
modify the system of Kikinis. The Office summarily concludes that it would have been obvious 
to combine the disparate teachings of Kikinis and Kamiya for reasons unrelated to the admitted 
deficiencies. The Office fails to provide a proper statement of motivation for restructuring the 
system of Kikinis to transmit data packets and a decryption key at different times. As 
information from the same source can be sent by land and satellite at the same time, Kikinis 
teaches away from transmitting data packets and a decryption key at different times. Therefore, 
the alleged statements of motivation are based purely on improper hindsight. Even if Kikinis' 
system could be drastically modified as suggested by the Office, the resulting modified system 
would nevertheless fail to show each and every limitation claimed by Appellant, as detailed 
above. As each and every claim limitation is not disclosed by the combination of Kikinis and 



-11- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 1 0/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

Karniya and the Final Office Action fails to properly address at least these claim limitations, the 

rejections are improper and should be withdrawn. 

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 Int'l 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, 111 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" 
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. 

Accordingly, in view of the preceding arguments, because the combination of Kikinis and 
Kamiya fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness against the claimed inventions, 
Appellant respectfully requests that the rejection of at least claim 24 be withdrawn and Appellant 
respectfully requests that claim 24 and all claims dependent thereon be allowed. 

D. Independent Claim 25 is Patentable Over Kikinis and Kamiya 



-12- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

The Office relies on a two reference combination to address the independent claim 25. 

Each of the applied references is deficient, alone or in any combination, to properly address each 

and every claim element as recited by Appellant. Even if the two disparate references could be 

combined, as suggested by the Office, the resulting combination would nevertheless fail to meet 

the various embodiments of the claimed inventions. 

\. The Kikinis Reference Not Only Fails to Suggest Two Transmission 
Times and Channels of a Transmission Mode But Teaches Against 
Such a Feature 

Independent claim 25 recites "one or more instructions for selecting and addressing said 
first set of data packets for transmission at a first transmission time via a first channel of a 
transmission mode at a first frequency , and automatically attaching a first address to said first 
set of data packets;" and "one or more instructions for selecting and addressing said second set of 
data packets for transmission at a second transmission time via a second channel of the 
transmission mode at a second frequency , wherein the second transmission time is different 
from the first transmission time and the second frequency is different from the first frequency." 

The combination of Kikinis and Kamiya fail to address each and every claim element as 
recited in independent claim 25. Rather, Kikinis discloses two disparate transmiss ion modes 
(e.g., Internet and Satellite) to transmit data packets and a decryption key. In particular, Kikinis 
discloses that the data packet is appropriately tagged with an IP address for identification by 
control software running in PC 19 and transmitted via the satellite 37 . See, e.g., column 6, lines 
28-32. Also, Kikinis discloses that a decryption key may be 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. In fact, the 
Office admits, in the Response to Arguments section of the Final Office Action, that Kikinis 

-13- 



U.S. Patent Application No. i 0/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

discloses two different transmission paths. Thus, Kikinis discloses the transmission of data 

packets and a decryption key via two disparate transmission modes (e.g., Internet and Satellite) 

and fails to disclose, or even suggest, "one or more instructions for selecting and addressing said 

first set of data packets for transmission at a first transmission time via a first channel of a 

transmission mode at a first frequency , and automatically attaching a first address to said first 

set of data packets," and "one or more instructions for selecting and addressing said second set of 

data packets for transmission at a second transmission time via a second channel of the 

transmission mode at a second frequency , wherein the second transmission time is different 

from the first transmission time and the second frequency is different from the first frequency," 

as recited in independent claim 25. 

The Office Action admits that Kikinis fails to disclose or suggest that first data packets 

for transmission at a first transmission time and a second set of data packets for transmission at a 

second transmission time, wherein the second transmission time is different from the first 

transmission time. See Final Office Action at page 6. In contrast to the claimed inventions, 

Kikinis discloses that it will be apparent to one with skill in the art that in a system of the 

invention whereby the user is connected to both a land route and a satellite route, information 

from the same source can be sent by land and satellite at the same time . See, e.g., column 6, 

lines 48-53. 

Moreover, Kikinis' disclosure and the claimed inventions are structurally different and 
the reason and motivation provided by the Office not only counter the disclosure of Kikinis but 
also destroy the teachings set forth in the Kikinis disclosure. If the proposed modification would 
render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then there is 
no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 221 

-14- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 571 32.000008 

USPQ 1 125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, if the proposed modification or combination of the 

prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, then 

the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In re 

Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959). A prior art reference must be considered in 

its entirety, i.e., as a whole , including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. 

W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), 

cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). In this case, the proposed modification to transmit data 

packets and a decryption key at different times when Kikinis teaches that such would not be 

desired and destroys the teachings of Kikinis and is therefore improper. Thus, Appellant submits 

that the Office has failed to properly address at least this claim limitation. 

2. Kikinis Teaches Against a Combination With Kamiya 

Acknowledging the severe deficiencies of Kikinis, the Final Office Action relies on 

Kamiya to remedy the severe deficiencies. Appellant submits that Kikinis teaches away from 

Kamiya. Specifically, Kikinis discloses that it will be apparent to one with skill in the art that in 

a system of the invention whereby the user is connected to both a land route and a satellite route 

as described above, information from the same source can be sent by land and satellite at the 

same time . See e.g., column 6, lines 48-53. In contrast, Kamiya discloses that in case where key 

information and content information are transmitted over the same physical network , content 

information and key information are not delivered simultaneously . See, e.g., paragraph [0023]. 

Thus, Appellant submits that one skilled in the art would have no reason to combine transmission 

of content information and a decryption key at different times via the same physical network as 

disclosed by Kamiya with simultaneous transmission over disparate networks of Kikinis. 



-15- 



U.S. Patent Application No 10 667 329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

As stated in MPEP § 2141.02, a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., 
as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & 
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 
(1984). As confirmed in MPEP § 2145, it is improper to combine references where the 
references teach away from their combination. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 73 1 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 

3. The Office Has Failed to Consider the Claimed Inventions as a Whole 
Appellant respectfully submits that the Office fails to consider the claimed inventions as a 

whole , and merely focuses on just the differences themselves with regard to application of the 
cited art. See MPEP §2141.02(1) and (III). Appellant further submits that the Office fails to 
consider the prior art in its entirely and merely picking and choosing selected portions for the 
alleged rejections of embodiments of the claimed inventions. Therefore, Kikinis and Kamiya, 
either alone or in combination, fail to render the claimed inventions as obvious. Accordingly, 
Appellant submits that the Office has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness for at 
least independent claim 25. 

As stated in MPEP § 2143.03, to establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, 
all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 98 1, 
180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). That is, "[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in judging the 
patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, 
496 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, the Appellant respectfully 
requests the reversal of the rejection of independent claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 

4. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have No Reason to Combine 
Kikinis and Kamiya 

The Office has failed to set forth a proper statement of motivation to address the admitted 

deficiencies. There is nothing in Kikinis that suggests any desirability or any need to transmit 

-16- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

data packets and a decryption key at different times. There is simply no reason for one skilled in 
the art to modify Kikinis as suggested by the Office. Kamiya fails to provide any reason to 
modify the system of Kikinis. The Office summarily concludes that it would have been obvious 
to combine the disparate teachings of Kikinis and Kamiya for reasons unrelated to the admitted 
deficiencies. The Office fails to provide a proper statement of motivation for restructuring the 
system of Kikinis to transmit data packets and a decryption key at different times. As 
information from the same source can be sent by land and satellite at the same time, Kikinis 
teaches away from transmitting data packets and a decryption key at different times. Therefore, 
the alleged statements of motivation are based purely on improper hindsight. Even if Kikinis' 
system could be drastically modified as suggested by the Office, the resulting modified system 
would nevertheless fail to show each and every limitation claimed by Appellant, as detailed 
above. As each and every claim limitation is not disclosed by the combination of Kikinis and 
Kamiya and the Office fails to properly address at least these claim limitations, the rejections are 
improper and should be withdrawn. 

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 Int'l Co. v. Teleflexlnc, 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 

-17- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

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" 

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. 

Accordingly, in view of the preceding arguments, because the combination of Kikinis and 

Kamiya fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness against the claimed inventions, 

Appellant respectfully requests that the rejection of at least claim 25 be withdrawn and Appellant 

respectfully requests that claim 25 and all claims dependent thereon be allowed. 

E. Independent Claim 26 is Patentable Over Kikinis and Kamiya 

The Office Action relies on a two reference combination to address the independent 

claim 26. Each of the applied references is deficient, alone or in any combination, to properly 

address each and every claim element as recited by Appellant. Even if the two disparate 

references could be combined, as suggested by the Office, the resulting combination would 

nevertheless fail to meet the various embodiments of the claimed inventions. 

1. The Kikinis Reference Not Only Fails to Suggest Two Transmission 
Times and Channels of a Transmission Mode But Teaches Against 
Such a Feature 

Independent claim 26 recites "a first transmission system for transmitting said first set of 
data from said second computing element to said first computing element at a first transmission 
time via a first channel of a transmission mode at a first frequency , and automatically attaching 
a first address to said first set of data packets;" and "a second transmission system for 
transmitting said second set of data from said second computing element to said first computing 

-18- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

element at a second transmission time via a second ch annel of the transmission mode at a 

second frequency , wherein the second transmission time is different from the first transmission 

time and the second frequency is different from the first frequency." 

The combination of Kikinis and Kamiya fail to address each and every claim element as 

recited in independent claim 26. Rather, Kikinis discloses two disparate transmission modes 

(e.g., Internet and Satellite) to transmit data packets and a decryption key. In particular, Kikinis 

discloses that the data packet is appropriately tagged with an IP address for identification by 

control software running in PC 19 and transmitted via the satellite 37 . See, e.g., column 6, lines 

28-32. Also, Kikinis discloses that a decryption key may be 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. In fact, the 

Office admits, in the Response to Arguments section of the Final Office Action, that Kikinis 

discloses two different transmission paths. Thus, Kikinis discloses the transmission of data 

packets and a decryption key via two disparate transmission modes (e.g., Internet and Satellite) 

and fails to disclose, or even suggest, "a first transmission system for transmitting said first set of 

data from said second computing element to said first computing element at a first transmission 

time via a first channel of a transmission mode at a first frequency , and automatically attaching 

a first address to said first set of data packets," and "a second transmission system for 

transmitting said second set of data from said second computing element to said first computing 

element at a second transmission time via a second channel of the transmission mode at a 

second frequency , wherein the second transmission time is different from the first transmission 

time and the second frequency is different from the first frequency," as recited in independent 

claim 26. 

-19- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

The Office Action admits that Kikinis fails to disclose or suggest that first data packets 

for transmission at a first transmission time and a second set of data packets for transmission at a 

second transmission time, wherein the second transmission time is different from the first 

transmission time. See Final Office Action at page 6. In contrast to the claimed inventions, 

Kikinis discloses that it will be apparent to one with skill in the art that in a system of the 

invention whereby the user is connected to both a land route and a satellite route, information 

from the same source can be sent by land and satellite at the same time . See, e.g., column 6, 

lines 48-53. 

Moreover, Kikinis' disclosure and the claimed inventions are structurally different and 
the reason and motivation provided by the Office not only counter the disclosure of Kikinis and 
but also destroy the teachings set forth in the Kikinis disclosure. If the proposed modification 
would render the prior art invention being modified unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, then 
there is no suggestion or motivation to make the proposed modification. In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 
900, 221 USPQ 1 125 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Moreover, if the proposed modification or combination 
of the prior art would change the principle of operation of the prior art invention being modified, 
then the teachings of the references are not sufficient to render the claims prima facie obvious. In 
re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 123 USPQ 349 (CCPA 1959). A prior art reference must be considered 
in its entirety, i.e., as a whole , including portions that would lead away from the claimed 
invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 121 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. 
Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984). In this case, the proposed modification to transmit 
data packets and a decryption key at different times when Kikinis teaches that such would not be 
desired and destroys the teachings of Kikinis and is therefore improper. Thus, Appellant submits 
that the Office has failed to properly address at least this claim limitation. 

-20- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

2. Kikinis Teaches Against a Combination With Kamiya 

Acknowledging the severe deficiencies of Kikinis, the Final Office Action relies on 
Kamiya to remedy the severe deficiencies. Appellant submits that Kikinis teaches away from 
Kamiya. Specifically, Kikinis discloses that it will be apparent to one with skill in the art that in 
a system of the invention whereby the user is connected to both a land route and a satellite route 
as described above, information from the same source can be sent by land and s atellite at the 
same time . See e.g., column 6, lines 48-53. In contrast, Kamiya discloses that in case where key 
information and content information are transmitted over the same physical network , content 
information and key information are not delivered simultaneously . See, e.g., paragraph [0023]. 
Thus, Appellant submits that one skilled in the art would have no reason to combine transmission 
of content information and a decryption key at different times via the same physical network as 
disclosed by Kamiya with simultaneous transmission over disparate networks of Kikinis. 

As stated in MPEP § 2141.02, a prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., 
as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention, W.L, Gore & 
Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert, denied, 469 U.S. 851 
(1984). As confirmed in MPEP § 2145, it is improper to combine references where the 
references teach away from their combination. In re Grasselli, 713 F.2d 731 (Fed. Cir. 1983). 

3. The Office Has Failed to Consider the Claimed Inventions as a Whole 
Appellant respectfully submits that the Office fails to consider the claimed inventions as a 

whole, and merely focuses on just the differences themselves with regard to application of the 
cited art. See MPEP §2141.02(1) and (III). Appellant further submits that the Office fails to 
consider the prior art in its entirely and merely picking and choosing selected portions for the 
alleged rejections of embodiments of the claimed inventions. Therefore, Kikinis and Kamiya, 

-21- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

either alone or in combination, fail to render the claimed inventions as obvious. Accordingly, 

Appellant submits that the Office has failed to set forth a prima facie case of obviousness for at 

least independent claim 26. 

As stated in MPEP § 2143.03, to establish prima facie obviousness of a claimed invention, 

all the claim limitations must be taught or suggested by the prior art. In re Royka, 490 F.2d 981, 

180 USPQ 580 (CCPA 1974). That is, "[a]ll words in a claim must be considered in judging the 

patentability of that claim against the prior art." In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494, 

496 (CCPA 1970). Accordingly, for at least the above reasons, the Appellant respectfully 

requests the reversal of the rejection of independent claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 

4. One of Ordinary Skill in the Art Would Have No Reason to Combine 
Kikinis and Kamiya 

The Office has failed to set forth a proper statement of motivation to address the admitted 
deficiencies. There is nothing in Kikinis that suggests any desirability or any need to transmit 
data packets and a decryption key at different times. There is simply no reason for one skilled in 
the art to modify Kikinis as suggested by the Office. Kamiya fails to provide any reason to 
modify the system of Kikinis. The Office summarily concludes that it would have been obvious 
to combine the disparate teachings of Kikinis and Kamiya for reasons unrelated to the admitted 
deficiencies. The Office fails to provide a proper statement of motivation for restructuring the 
system of Kikinis to transmit data packets and a decryption key at different times. As 
information from the same source can be sent by land and satellite at the same time, Kikinis 
teaches away from transmitting data packets and a decryption key at different times. Therefore, 
the alleged statements of motivation are based purely on improper hindsight. Even if Kikinis' 
system could be drastically modified as suggested by the Office, the resulting modified system 



-22- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

would nevertheless fail to show each and every limitation claimed by Appellant, as detailed 

above. As each and every claim limitation is not disclosed by the combination of Kikinis and 

Kamiya and the Office fails to properly address at least these claim limitations, the rejections are 

improper and should be withdrawn. 

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 Int'l 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, 111 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" 
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. 

Accordingly, in view of the preceding arguments, because the combination of Kikinis and 
Kamiya fails to present a prima facie case of obviousness against the claimed inventions, 
Appellant respectfully requests that the rejection of at least claim 26 be withdrawn and Appellant 
respectfully requests that claim 26 and ail claims dependent thereon be allowed. 

-23- 



I'.S. I\ik-m Application N... \ii!^.}2>> 
Attorney Docket No: 57! 32.000008 

F. The Rejection of Dependent Claims 27-32 is Improper 

As these dependent claims encompass the limitations of independent claims 24, 25, and 
26, these claims should be allowed for at least the reasons stated above. For at least these 
reasons, Appellant respectfully submits that the rejections of the pending claims are improper 
and request that they be withdrawn. Additionally, these claims are separately patentable over the 
combination of references for at least the reasons stated below. 

1. Dependent Claim 27 is Separately Patentable 

Dependent claim 27 is separately patentable over Kikinis and Kamiya. The references 
fail to disclose "wherein the transmission mode is a satellite delivery system comprised of a 
network processing center with an associated provider antenna and at least one subscriber 
terminal with an associated subscriber antenna." Accordingly, Appellant respectfully requests 
that the rejection of claim 27 be withdrawn. 

2. Dependent Claim 28 is Separately Patentable 

Dependent claim 28 is separately patentable over Kikinis and Kamiya. The references 
fail to disclose "wherein the satellite delivery system further comprises a satellite." Accordingly, 
Appellant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 28 be withdrawn. 

3. Dependent Claim 29 is Separately Patentable 

Dependent claim 29 is separately patentable over Kikinis and Kamiya. The references 
fail to disclose "wherein the transmission mode is a satellite delivery system comprised of a 
network processing center with an associated provider antenna and at least one subscriber 
terminal with an associated subscriber antenna." Accordingly, Appellant respectfully requests 
that the rejection of claim 29 be withdrawn. 

4. Dependent Claim 30 is Separately Patentable 

-24- 



U.S. Patent Application No, 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57 1 32.000008 

Dependent claim 30 is separately patentable over Kikinis and Kamiya. The references 

fail to disclose "wherein the satellite delivery system further comprises a satellite." Accordingly, 

Appellant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 30 be withdrawn. 

5. Dependent Claim 31 is Separately Patentable 

Dependent claim 3 1 is separately patentable over Kikinis and Kamiya. The references 
fail to disclose "wherein the transmission mode is a satellite delivery system comprised of a 
provider antenna at a provider location for communicating via satellite signals to a subscriber 
antenna." Accordingly, Appellant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 31 be 
withdrawn. 

6. Dependent Claim 32 is Separately Patentable 

Dependent claim 32 is separately patentable over Kikinis and Kamiya. The references 
fail to disclose "wherein the satellite delivery system further comprises a satellite." Accordingly, 
Appellant respectfully requests that the rejection of claim 32 be withdrawn. 



-25- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 



IX. CONCLUSION 

In view of the foregoing, Appellant respectfully submits that the present application is in 
condition for allowance, and an early indication of the same is courteously solicited. 

Please charge any shortage in fees due in connection with the filing of this paper, 
including extension of time fees, to Deposit Account No. 50-0206, and please credit any excess 
fees to the same deposit account. 



Hunton & Williams, LLP 
1900KSt.,N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20006-1109 
Tel. (202) 955-1500 
Fax (202) 778-2201 



Respectfully submitted, 



Date: April 23, 2010 




-26- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 



APPENDIX A - CLAIMS 

1-18. (Cancelled) 

19. (Withdrawn) A method for transmitting data, said method comprising the steps of: 

providing data for transmission to a recipient; 

selecting and addressing a first set of data for transmission to said recipient via a first 
transmission method, and 

selecting and addressing a second set of data for transmission to said recipient via a 
second transmission method. 

20. (Withdrawn) The system of claim 19 above, wherein said first set of data is selected and 
addressed for transmission via a wired data transmission network and said second set of data is 
selected and addressed for transmission via a satellite transmission system. 

21 . (Withdrawn) The system of claim 20 above, wherein said the first and second sets of data 
are selected and addressed for transmission via the Internet and further wherein the first set of 
data is addressed to follow a first transmission path and the second set of data is addressed to 
follow a second transmission path. 

22. (Withdrawn) The system of claim 19 above, wherein said first set of data is addressed to be 
transmitted via a first frequency and said second set of data is addressed to be transmitted via a 
second frequency. 



-27- 



U.S. I'airni Application 

Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

23. (Withdrawn) The system of claim 19 above, wherein said first set of data is designated to be 
transmitted at a first time and said second set of data is designated to be transmitted at a second 
time. 

24. (Previously Presented) A method for requesting and securely receiving data from the 
Internet, said method comprising the steps of: 

receiving a request for data; 

collecting data in response to said request; 

packetizing said collected data into at least two sets of data packets, wherein a first set of 
data packets comprises encrypted data and a second set of data packets comprises a key for 
decoding said encrypted data; 

selecting and addressing said first set of data packets for transmission at a first 
transmission time via a first channel of a transmission mode at a first frequency, and 
automatically attaching a first address to said first set of data packets; 

selecting and addressing said second set of data packets for transmission at a second 
transmission time via a second channel of the transmission mode at a second frequency, wherein 
the second transmission time is different from the first transmission time and the second 
frequency is different from the first frequency; 

transmitting said first set of data packets via said first channel; and 

transmitting said second set of data packets via said second channel. 

25. (Previously Presented) A computer readable medium executing and storing a software 
application for enabling requesting and securely receiving data from the Internet, said software 

-28- 



I. F;.a-nl A|>ph;-.-iti.-.n K... IH'ftf.?..^ 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

application comprising: 

one or more instructions for receiving a request for data; 

one or more instructions for collecting data in response to said request; 

one or more instructions for packetizing said collected data into at least two sets of data 
packets, wherein a first set of data packets comprises encrypted data and a second set of data 
packets comprises a key for decoding said encrypted data; 

one or more instructions for selecting and addressing said first set of data packets for 
transmission at a first transmission time via a first channel of a transmission mode at a first 
frequency, and automatically attaching a first address to said first set of data packets; 

one or more instructions for selecting and addressing said second set of data packets for 
transmission at a second transmission time via a second channel of the transmission mode at a 
second frequency, wherein the second transmission time is different from the first transmission 
time and the second frequency is different from the first frequency; 

one or more instructions for transmitting said first set of data packets via said first 
channel; and 

one or more instructions for transmitting said second set of data packets via said second 
channel. 

26. (Previously Presented) A system for requesting and securely receiving data, said system 
comprising: 

a first computing element for receiving a request for data; 

a second computing element for collecting data in response to said request; wherein said 
second computing element packetizes said collected data into at least two sets of data packets, 

-29- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667.329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

wherein a first set of data packets comprises encrypted data and a second set of data packets 

comprises a key for decoding said encrypted data; 

a first transmission system for transmitting said first set of data from said second 
computing element to said first computing element at a first transmission time via a first channel 
of a transmission mode at a first frequency, and automatically attaching a first address to said 
first set of data packets; 

a second transmission system for transmitting said second set of data from said second 
computing element to said first computing element at a second transmission time via a second 
channel of the transmission mode at a second frequency, wherein the second transmission time is 
different from the first transmission time and the second frequency is different from the first 
frequency. 

27. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 24, wherein the transmission mode is a satellite 
delivery system comprised of a network processing center with an associated provider antenna 
and at least one subscriber terminal with an associated subscriber antenna. 

28. (Previously Presented) The method of claim 27, wherein the satellite delivery system 
further comprises a satellite. 

29. (Previously Presented) The computer readable medium of claim 25, wherein the 
transmission mode is a satellite delivery system comprised of a network processing center with 
an associated provider antenna and at least one subscriber terminal with an associated subscriber 
antenna, 

-30- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/66/. 329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 

30. (Previously Presented) The computer readable medium of claim 29, wherein the satellite 
delivery system further comprises a satellite. 

31. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 26, wherein the transmission mode is a satellite 
delivery system comprised of a provider antenna at a provider location for communicating via 
satellite signals to a subscriber antenna. 

32. (Previously Presented) The system of claim 31, wherein the satellite delivery system further 
comprises a satellite. 



-31- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 



APPENDIX B - EVIDENCE 



NONE 



-32- 



U.S. Patent Application No. 10/667,329 
Attorney Docket No: 57132.000008 



APPENDIX C - RELATED PROCEEDINGS 



NONE 



-33-