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/Art Unit 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 

REPLY BRIEF 



REPLY BRIEF 

In response to the Examiner's Answer mailed July 7, 2010, in connection with the above- 
captioned patent application. Appellant presents this Reply Brief to clarify points raised by the 
Office in the Examiner's Answer. 



I. 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Claims 19-23 are currently withdrawn from consideration.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 etal. ("Kamiya"). 

The final rejection of claims 24-32 is hereby appealed. 



-2- 



II. Ground Of Rejection To Be Reviewed On Appeal 

The following ground of rejection is to be reviewed on appeal: 

The rejection of claims 24-32 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"). 



-3- 



III. Argument 

This Appellant's Reply Brief is responsive to the Examiner's Answer mailed July 7, 
2010, in connection with the above-captioned patent application. Appellant presents this Reply 
Brief to clarify points and answer new arguments raised by the Office in the Examiner's Answer. 

In the Examiner's Answer, the Office repeats the rejection of all pending claims based on 
the cited references. Appellant hereby clarifies its rebuttal to the rejection and answers to the 
new arguments raised by the Examiner. 

A. The Office Continues to Misinterpret the Claimed Inventions 
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 
"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 ." 
Appellant submits that claim 24 recites a single transmission mode for transmitting first set of 
data packet at a first transmission time via a first channel and second set of data packets at a 
second transmission time via a second channel. In contrast, 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 addition, the Office acknowledges that Kikinis discloses two transmission modes (e.g., 



satellite and Internet) of transmission for delivering encrypted data and decrypting key to a 
client's destination. See, e.g., Examiner's Answer, pages 9 and 10. Thus, Appellant respectfully 
submits that Kikinis 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 "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 ," as recited in claim 24. 

B. The Purported Combination of Cited References is Improper 
The Office continues to improperly allege that 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 of Kamiya 
within the system of Kikinis because they are analogous in secure content distribution in 
different transmission channel. Also, the Office in the Examiner's Answer continues to allege 
that Kikinis does not teach away from Kamiya. Appellant respectfully disagrees. In particular, 
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., Kikinis, 
column 6, lines 48-53. Thus, Kikinis discloses that the information are sent at the same time by 
land and satellite. Kamiya, in contrast to Kikinis, discloses a data delivery system that transmits 
content packets and key packets at different times . See, e.g., Kamiya, paragraph [0023]-[0025]. 
Thus, Appellant respectfully submits that Kikinis teaches away from Kamiya and it would not 
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to 



-5- 



employ the different time transmission of Kamiya for the same time transmission system of 
Kikinis. 

C. The Office Continues to Ignore the Teachings of Kamiya 

Also, the Office continues to improperly allege that Kamiya discloses that the digital data 
and key information are delivered via different routes and at different times. Kamiya discloses 
that the digital data and the key information are transmitted either via different routes or at 
different times and not via different routes and at different times, as alleged by the Office. In 
particular, 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 of 
ordinary 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 the disparate networks of Kikinis. 

For at least the above reasons, Appellant respectfully requests that the obviousness 
rejection of claims 24-32 be withdrawn. 



-6- 



IV. Conclusion 

Appellant respectfully submits that the pending claims are allowable over the cited 
references. Accordingly, Appellant respectfully requests that the Board reverse the prior art 
rejections set forth in the Examiner's Answer. Appellant respectfully submits that no other fees 
are required in connection with this request. However, in the event it is determined that a further 
fee is necessary to maintain the pendency of this application, the Commissioner is hereby 
authorized to charge or credit the undersigned's deposit account number 50-0206. 



Hunton & Williams 
1900 K. St., NW, Suite 1200 
Washington, D.C. 20006-1109 
Telephone: (202) 955-1500 
Facsimile: (202) 778-2201 

Date: August 30, 2010 



Respectfully submitted, 




-7-