Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 10667329"

See other formats


United States Patent and Trademark Office 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
I nilid Stall-, Patent and Trademark Office 

Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS 



APPLICATION NO. 



FILING DATE 



FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 



ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 



10/607.329 



0V/2.V2003 



21967 7590 07/07/2010 

HUNTON & WILLIAMS LLP 
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DEPARTMENT 
1900 K STREET, N.W. 
SUITE 1200 

WASHINGTON, DC 20006-1 109 



SHIFERAW, ELENI A 



PAPER NUMBER 



DELIVERY MODE 



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 



Commissioner for Patents 
United States Patent and Trademark Office 

P.O. BOX 1450 

Alexandria, VA 223 i 3- i 450 

www.uspto.gov 



BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS 
AND INTERFERENCES 



Application Number: 10/667,329 
Filing Date: September 23, 2003 
Appellant(s): HANE, JOHN 



Dalci Dong 
For Appellant 



EXAMINER'S ANSWER 



This is in response to the appeal brief filed 04/23/2010 appealing from the Office action mailed 
11/02/2009. 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 
Art Unit: 2436 



Page 2 



1. Real Party Interest 

A statement identifying the real party in interest is contained in the brief. 

2. Related Appeals and Interferences 

The brief does not contain a statement identifying the related appeals and interferences 
which will directly affect or be directly affected by or have a bearing on the decision in 
the pending appeal is contained in the brief. Therefore, it is presumed that there are none. 
The Board, however, may exercise its discretion to require an explicit statement as to the 
existence of any related appeals and interferences. 

3. Status of the Claims 

The statement of the status of the claims contained in the brief is correct. 

4. Status of Amendments After Final 

The Appellant's statement of the status of amendments contained in the brief is correct. 

5. Summary of Claimed Subject Matter 

The summary of claimed subject matter contained in the brief is correct. 

6. Ground of Rejection to be Reviewed on Appeal 

The appellant's statement of the grounds of rejection to be reviewed on appeal is correct. 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 3 

Art Unit: 2436 

7. Claims Appendix 

The copy of the appealed claims contained in the Appendix to the brief is correct. 

8. Evidence Relied Upon 



USPN 6289389 


Kikinis 


September 11,2001 


USPN 20020106086 


Kamiya 


August 8, 2002 



9. Ground of Rejection 

The following ground(s) of rejection are applicable to the appealed claims: 

Claim Rejections - 35 USC ยง 103 

1. Claims 24-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kikinis 
(US Patent 6,289,389) in view of Kamiya et al. 2002/0106086 Al. 

Regarding claims 24, 25 and 26 Kikinis discloses a method for requesting and securely 
receiving data from the Internet (col. 2 lines 54-67 and fig. 3), said method comprising the steps 
of: 

receiving a request for data (col. 1, lines 5-10 and fig. 3, data requested by a user); 
collecting data in response to said request (col. 1, lines 5-10, data gathering site); 

packetizing said collected data into at least two sets of data packets (col. 6, lines 30-47, 
encrypted data and decryption key); 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 4 

Art Unit: 2436 

wherein a first set of data packets comprises encrypted data (col. 6, lines 30-47, 
encrypted data) and a second set of data packets comprises a key for decoding said 
encrypted data (col. 6, lines 30-47, decryption key) selecting and addressing said first set 
of data packets for transmission 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 (see 
col. 3 lines 46-56, col. 3 lines 7-9, and col. 6, lines 30-47, through modem); 

selecting and addressing said second set of data packets for transmission via a second 
channel of the transmission mode at a second frequency, wherein the second frequency is 
different from the first frequency (see col. 3 lines 46-56, col. 3 lines 7-9, and col. 6, lines 
30-47, through digital link to satellite); 

transmitting said first set of data packets via said first channel (col. 6, lines 30-47, 
through modem); and 

transmitting said second set of data packets via said second channel (col. 6, lines 30-47, 
through digital link to satellite). 

o Kikinis fails to disclose 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. 

o However transmitting a encrypted content data packet with first address over a 
first path via a first channel of a transmission mode and transmitting a key that is 
used to encrypt the content and has a second address via a different path channel 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 5 

Art Unit: 2436 

of the transmission mode with a transmission time that is different from the first 
eg. in hours or days apart, is disclosed by Kamiya et al. (see par. 0023-0025 and 
0006-0012). Therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in 
the art at the time of the invention was made to employ the teachings within the 
system of Kikinis because they are analogous in secure content distribution in 
different transmission channel. One would have been obvious to do so because it 
would prevent hackers from intercepting the transmitted data and find all the 
information (key and content) in one single interception and retrieve data and 
would make it difficult to hackers to intrude transmitted data. 

Regarding claims 27, 29 and 31, Kikinis teaches the method, 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 (see figs. 1-3). 

Regarding claims 28, 30 and 32, Kikinis teaches the method wherein the satellite delivery system 
further comprises a satellite (see figs. 1-3). 

10. Response to Argument 

Examiner's response to Argument A: 
Section 1: 

The appellant's argument regarding Kikinis teaching away since a second reference 
(Kamiya et al.) is combined for teaching "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 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 6 

Art Unit: 2436 

transmission time" is not persuasive because transmitting key packet and content packet 
in two channels via different times adds additional security to what Kikinis is already 
teaching, as sufficient motivation to combine is provided in the Final office action. 
Kikinis teaches providing security to data communication systems by sending decrypting 
key packets and encrypted information packets in different channels, i.e., satellite link 
and land- link/Internet modem 17, to destination user client PC 19 (see fig. 1 and col. 6 
lines 28-lines 42). 

Kamiya teaches providing security to data delivery system by transmitting content 
packets and key packets in different times, e.g., hours or days apart, over different routes 
(see par. 0023-0025 and 0006-0012). The different routes (multipoint delivery) are also 
routes that are physically separate, i.e., satellite 3 and internet network 4 (see par. fig. 
0007 and fig. 1 or fig. 3). Kamiya also teaches transmitting digital data content packet 
over a high-speed multipoint delivery network 3, i.e., satellite system physically separate 
from the internet wide area network route 4 (see par. 75 and fig. 1). Kamiya further 
teaches that transmitting encryption key packets over the wide area network route 4 that 
is physically separate from the satellite route (par. 82). Kamiya different routes and 
different times transmission is for security, in case a hacker intercepts one of the packets, 
for example content packets, the system would make it difficult to the hacker by sending 
the key in a different time unknown to the hacker and would not use the content without 
the decryption key (see motivation of the Final action). Therefore Kikinis does not teach 
away and Kamiya adds additional security to Kikinis system. 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 
Art Unit: 2436 



Page 7 



Section 2: 

Regarding argument "the Office relies on Kamiya's discussion of in 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., par. 
[0023]" argument is not persuasive because the routes are also physically separate routes 
(see e.g. Kamiya par. [0007]) that discloses: 

"... The upstream system generates a plurality of pieces of key information 
specific to destinations and/or to the digital data to be delivered. These pieces of key 
information are delivered to the corresponding destination routes different from those that 
cany the encrypted digital data, or content. All delivery routes are made different or 
separate from one another either physically or temporally, i.e.. by slaggcrini: llic limes of 
delivery. .. ." 

Kamiya teaches providing security to data delivery system by transmitting content 
packets and key packets in different times, e.g., hours or days apart, over different routes 
(see par. 0023-0025 and 0006-0012). The different routes (multipoint delivery) are also 
routes that are physically separate, i.e., satellite 3 and internet network 4 (see par. fig. 
0007 and fig. 1). Kamiya also teaches transmitting digital data content packet over a 
high-speed multipoint delivery network 3, i.e., satellite system physically separate from 
the internet wide area network route 4 (see par. 75 and fig. 1). Kamiya further teaches 
that transmitting encryption key packets over the wide area network route 4 that is 
physically separate from the satellite route (par. 82). 



Examiner's response to Argument B: 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 8 

Art Unit: 2436 

Regarding argument the 103 rejection over Kikinis and Kamiya is improper 
because the combination fails to make obvious each and every claim limitation as recited 
by the Appellant, argument is not persuasive because every single limitation of the claims 
are reasonably address and satisfied in light of the appellant's disclosure and sufficient 
motivation to combine is provided. 

Examiner's response to Argument C: 

Regarding argument "The office relies on a two reference combination to address 
the independent claim 24. Each of the applied references is different, 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," Argument is certainly not persuasive because of the following 
reasons: 

Appellant's invention , at least, (see on fig. 3 elements 66-70 and col. 10 lines 19- 
24), discloses transmitting packets (encrypted data and key data) over two different 
transmission modes/channels, i.e., Internet and Satellite transmission mode/channel. The 
Office provided a reasonable and proper rejection consistent with Appellant's disclosure. 
As explained above Kikinis also teaches the two transmission modes, as satellite channel 
and land-line/Internet channel to deliver encrypted data and decrypting key to the client's 
destination PC (see fig. 1 and col. 6 lines 28-lines 42). Kamiya also teaches transmitting 
digital data content packet over a high-speed multipoint delivery network 3, i.e., satellite 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 9 

Art Unit: 2436 

system having broader bandwidth and physically separate from the internet wide area 
network route 4 (see par. 75 and fig. 1). Kamiya further teaches that transmitting 
encryption key packets over the wide area network route 4 that is physically separate 
from the satellite route (par. 82). Therefore combination of Kikinis and Kamiya do 
disclose the embodiments of the claimed invention. 

Section 1: 

Regarding argument "The Kikinis reference not only fails to suggest two 
transmission times and channels of a transmission mode but teaches against such 
feature," argument is not persuasive because Kikinis teaches the two transmission modes 
as satellite channel and land-line/Internet channel to deliver encrypted data and 
decrypting key to the client's destination PC (see fig. 1 and col. 6 lines 28-lines 42). 
Kikinis further discloses (on col. 2 lines 54-67) a data delivery system to transmit data to 
a user, a first link adapted to transmit data via a first delivery path and a second link 
adapted to transmit data via a second delivery path to the user; and the second delivery 
path having a broader bandwidth that the first delivery path. Col. 6 lines 22-38 of 
Kikinis discloses the satellite transmission being faster than the land-line. The two 
different paths are not having same frequency. Kikinis discloses a data delivery 
system, comprising a server connected to data sources and adapted to transmit data to a 
user; a first link from the server adapted to transmit data to the user via a first delivery 
path; a second link from the server adapted to transmit data via a second delivery path to 
the user, .... For each data entity to be transmitted to the user, the transmission control 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 10 

Art Unit: 2436 

routines select either the first path or the second path for transmission, based on size of 
the data entity and preprogrammed criteria. In a preferred embodiment the first path is a 
land-based path, and the second path is a satellite transmission path having a broader 
bandwidth/frequency than the other path (see col. 2 lines 54-67). Kikinis (on col. 3 
lines 47-57) discloses the land-based path being land based internet connection through 
a public-switched telephone network. Kikinis further discloses encrypting the data and 
transmitting a deciphering key to user by a separate path than the encrypted data is sent 
(see col. 3 lines 7-9). Kikinis prepares encrypted data packet and key packet and delivers 
to requesting user device address over different paths (see col. 6 lines 28-47). Kikinis 
discloses one of the paths have significantly higher bandwidth/frequency than the 
other path (see col. 3 lines 53-55 and abstract ). Therefore the two channels of the two 
transmission mode at different frequency are taught by Kikinis. Kamiya is cited for 
teaching transmitting encrypted content data packet with first address over a first path via 
a first channel of a transmission mode and transmitting a key that is used to encrypt the 
content and has a second address via a different path channel of the transmission mode 
with a transmission time that is different from the first, eg. in hours or days apart, (fig. 3, 
006-0012, par. 75 and 82). 

Regarding argument Kikinis for the user being connected to both routes at the same time, 
argument is not persuasive because Kamiya is combined for teaching transmitting key 
packet and content packet in two channels via different times that adds additional security 
to what Kikinis is already teaching, as sufficient motivation to combine is provided in the 
Final office action. 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 11 

Art Unit: 2436 

Regarding argument no motivation to combine, argument is not persuasive because 
sufficient motivation to combine is provided as explained above and/or in the previous 
Final office action. Moreover, transmitting data packets and a decryption key at different 
times does not destroy the teachings of Kikinis but adds additional security. 

Section 2: 

Regarding argument Kikinis for teaching against a combination with Kamiya, argument 
is not persuasive because Kikinis teaches providing security to data communication 
systems by sending decrypting key packets and encrypted information packets in 
different channels, i.e., satellite link and land-link/internet modem 17, to destination user 
client PC 19 (see fig. 1 and col. 6 lines 28-lines 42). 

Kamiya teaches providing security to data delivery system by transmitting content 
packets and key packets in different times, e.g., hours or days apart, over different routes 
(see par. 0023-0025 and 0006-0012). The different routes (multipoint delivery) are also 
routes that are physically separate, i.e., satellite 3 and internet network 4 (see par. fig. 
0007 and fig. 1 or fig. 3). Kamiya also teaches transmitting digital data content packet 
over a high-speed multipoint delivery network 3, i.e., satellite system physically separate 
from the internet wide area network route 4 (see par. 75 and fig. 1). Kamiya further 
teaches that transmitting encryption key packets over the wide area network route 4 that 
is physically separate from the satellite route (par. 82). Kamiya transmission is for 
security, in case a hacker intercepts one of the packets, for example content packets, the 
system would make it difficult to the hacker by sending the key in a different time 
unknown to the hacker and would not use the content without the decryption key (see 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 12 

Art Unit: 2436 

motivation of the Final action). Therefore Kikinis does not teach away and Kamiya adds 
additional security to Kikinis system. 

Section 3: 

Regarding argument the Office failure to consider the claimed invention as a whole, 
argument is not persuasive because the Office provided a reasonable interpretation in 
light of the disclosure considering the claimed invention as a whole and considered the 
applied prior arts entirely. 
Section 4: 

Regarding argument one ordinary skill in the art would have no reason to combine 
Kikinis and Kamiya, argument is certainly not persuasive as the examiner explained 
above and/or sufficient motivation to combine is provided in the Final office action. 

Examiner's response to Argument D: 

The appellant's arguments for claims 25 are similar as the arguments for claim 24 
that the claims also recite similar limitations and arguments are not persuasive based on 
same argument as claim 24. 

Examiner's response to Argument E: 

The appellant's arguments for claims 26 are similar as the arguments for claim 24 
that the claims also recite similar limitations and arguments are not persuasive based on 
same argument as claim 24. 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 13 

Art Unit: 2436 

Examiner's response to Argument F: 

Regarding argument the references failure to teach dependent claims 27, 29, and 

31, argument is not persuasive because Kikinis (see figs. 1-3) teaches the transmission 
mode 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. 

Regarding argument the references failure to teach dependent claims 28, 30 and 

32, argument is not persuasive because Kikinis teaches the method wherein the satellite 
delivery system further comprises a satellite (see figs. 1-3; see element 37). 

1 1 . Related Proceeding(s) 

No decision rendered by a court or the Board is identified by the examiner in the Related 
Appeals and Interferences section of the examiner's answer. 

12. Conclusion 

For the above reasons, it is believed that the rejections should be sustained. 

Respectfully submitted, 

July 1,2010 
Conferees: 

SPE Nasser Moazami 
/David Garcia Cervetti/ 



Application/Control Number: 10/667,329 Page 14 

Art Unit: 2436 

Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436 
David Garcia Cervetti 

/Nasser Moazzami/ 
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2436 



The examiner: 

/Eleni A Shiferaw/ 

Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2436