Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`10. (original) The system of claim 8, further comprising a SECD, said SECD capable
`of receiving a request to transfer at least one data set and capable of
`transmitting the at least one data set in a secured transmission.
`
`11. (original) The system of claim 10, wherein the SU includes means to send a
`message to the LCS indicating that the SU is requesting a copy of a content
`data set that is not stored on the LCS, but which the LCS can obtain from an
`SECD, said message including information about the identity of the SU;
`wherein the SECD comprises:
`means to retrieve a copy of the requested content data set;
`means to embed at least one robust open watermark into the
`copy of the requested content data set, said watermark indicating that the copy
`is authenticated;
`means to embed a second watermark into the copy of the
`requested content data set, said second watermark being created based upon
`information transmitted by the LCS; and
`means to deliver the watermarked content data set to the LCS for
`
`its use; and
`
`wherein the LCS comprises:
`means to analyze the message from the SU to confirm that the
`SU is authorized to use the LCS;
`means to receive a copy of the requested content data set as
`transmitted by the SECD;
`means to extract at least one watermark to confirm that the
`content data is authorized for use by the LCS;
`means to embed at least one robust open watermark into the
`copy of the requested content data set, said watermark indicating that the copy
`is authenticated;
`
`6
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1203
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`means to embed a second watermark into the copy of the
`requested content data set, said second watermark being created based upon
`information transmitted by the SU and information about the LCS; and
`means to deliver the watermarked content data set to the SU for
`
`its use.
`
`12. (currently amended) The system of claim 8, wherein the SU has means to
`sending a message to the LCS indicating that the SU is requesting to store a
`copy of a content data set on a storage unit of the LCS, said message including
`information about the identity of the SU, and wherein the LCS comprises:
`means to analyze the message from the SU to confirm that the SU is
`authorized to use the LCS;
`means to receive a copy of the content data set;
`means to determine if a robust open watermark is embedded in the
`content data set, and to extract the robust open watermark if is it is determined
`that one exists;
`means to analyze any extracted robust open watermarks to determine if
`the content data set can be authenticated;
`means to permit the storage of the content data set on a storage unit of
`the LCS if i) the LCS authenticates the content data set, or ii) the LCS
`determines that no robust open watermark is embedded in the content signal.
`
`13. (previously presented) The system of claim 4, further comprising at least one SU,
`each such SU being capable of communicating with the LCS, and being
`capable of using only data which has been authorized for use by the SU or
`which has been determined to be legacy content such that the data contains no
`additional information to permit authentication.
`
`14. (original) The system of claim 5, wherein the LCS further comprises:
`
`7
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1204
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`means to embed at least one robust open watermark into a copy of
`content data, said watermark indicating that the copy is authenticated;
`means to embed a second watermark into the copy of content data, said
`second watermark being created based upon information comprising
`information uniquely associated with the LCS; and
`means to embed a third watermark into the copy of content data, said
`third watermark being a fragile watermark created based upon information
`which can enhance the use of the content data on one or more SUs.
`
`15. (original) The system of claim 5, wherein the LCS further comprises:
`means for encrypting or scrambling content data, such that content data
`may be encrypted or scrambled before it is stored in the rewritable storage
`medium.
`
`16. (previously presented) A system for creating a secure environment for digital
`content, comprising:
`
`a Secure Electronic Content Distributor (SECD);
`a Local Content Server (LCS);
`a communications network interconnecting the SECD to the LCS; and
`
`a Satellite Unit (SU) capable of interfacing with the LCS;
`said SECD comprising: a storage device for storing a plurality of data
`sets; an input for receiving a request from the LCS to purchase a selection of at
`least one of said plurality of data sets; a transaction processor for validating the
`request to purchase and for processing payment for the request; a security
`module for encrypting or otherwise securing the selected at least one data set;
`and an output for transmitting the selected at least one data set that has been
`encrypted or otherwise secured for transmission over the communications
`network to the LCS;
`
`8
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1205
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`said LCS comprising: a domain processor; a first interface for connecting
`to a communications network; a second interface for communicating with the
`SU; a memory device for storing a plurality of data sets; and a programmable
`address module which can be programmed with an identification code uniquely
`associated with the LCS; and
`said SU being a portable module comprising: a memory for accepting
`secure digital content from a LCS, said digital content comprising data which
`can be authorized for use or which has been determined to be legacy content
`such that the data contains no additional information to permit authentication;
`an interface for communicating with the LCS; and a programmable address
`module which can be programmed with an identification code uniquely
`associated with the SU.
`
`17. (previously presented) A method for creating a secure environment for digital
`content for a consumer, comprising the following steps:
`sending a message indicating that a user is requesting a copy of a
`content data set;
`retrieving a copy of the requested content data set;
`embedding at least one robust open watermark into the copy of the
`requested content data set, said watermark indicating that the copy is
`authenticated;
`embedding a second watermark into the copy of the requested content
`data set, said second watermark being created based upon information
`transmitted by the requesting user;
`transmitting the watermarked content data set to the requesting
`consumer via an electronic network;
`receiving the transmitted watermarked content data set into a Local
`Content Server (LCS) of the user;
`extracting at least one watermark from the transmitted watermarked
`content data set;
`
`9
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1206
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`permitting use of the content data set if the LCS determines that use is
`authorized; and
`
`permitting use of the content data set at a predetermined quality level,
`said predetermined quality level having been set for legacy content if the LCS
`determines that use is not authorized.
`
`18. (previously presented) The method of claim 17, wherein the step of permitting use
`of the content data set if the LCS determines that use is authorized comprises:
`checking to see if a watermark extracted from the content data set
`includes information which matches unique information which is associated with
`the user; and
`
`permitting the storage of the content data set in a storage unit for the
`
`LCS.
`
`19. (previously presented) The method of claim 17, further comprising:
`connecting a Satellite Unit (SU) to an LCS,
`and wherein the step of permitting use of the content data set if the LCS
`determines that use is authorized comprises:
`checking to see if a watermark extracted from the content data set
`includes information which matches unique information which is associated with
`the user; and
`embedding a watermark into the content data set using information that
`is associated with the user and information that is associated with an SU;
`delivering the content data set to the SU for its use.
`
`20. (previously presented) A method for creating a secure environment for digital
`content for a consumer, comprising the following steps:
`connecting a Satellite Unit to an local content server (LCS),
`
`10
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1207
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`sending a message indicating that the SU is requesting a copy of a
`content data set that is stored on the LCS, said message including information
`about the identity of the SU;
`analyzing the message to confirm that the SU is authorized to use the
`LCS; and
`retrieving a copy of the requested content data set;
`assessing whether a secured connection exists between the LCS and
`the SU;
`if a secured connection exists, embedding a watermark into the copy of
`the requested content data set, said watermark being created based upon
`information transmitted by the SU and information about the LCS; and
`delivering the content data set to the SU for its use, said content data set
`delivered at a predetermined quality level, said predetermined quality level
`having been set for legacy content if the LCS determines that use is not
`authorized.
`
`21. (previously presented) The method of claim 20, further comprising:
`embedding an open watermark into the content data to permit enhanced
`usage of the content data by the user.
`
`22. (previously presented) The method of claim 21, further comprising:
`embedding at least one additional watermark into the content data, said
`at least one additional watermark being based on information about the user,
`the LCS and an origin of the content data, said watermark serving as a forensic
`watermark to permit forensic analysis to provide information on the history of
`the content data's use.
`
`23. (original) The method of claim 20, wherein the content data can be stored at a
`level of quality which is selected by a user.
`
`11
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1208
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`24. (previously presented) A method for creating a secure environment for digital
`content for a consumer, comprising the following steps:
`connecting a Satellite Unit (SU) to an local content server (LCS),
`sending a message indicating that the SU is requesting a copy of a
`content data set that is stored on the LCS, said message including information
`about the identity of the SU;
`analyzing the message to confirm that the SU is authorized to use the
`LCS; and
`
`retrieving a copy of the requested content data set;
`assessing whether a secured connection exists between the LCS and
`the SU;
`if a secured connection exists, embedding a watermark into the copy of
`the requested content data set, said watermark being created based upon
`information transmitted by the SU and information about the LCS; and
`delivering the watermarked content data set to the SU for its use, said
`watermarked content data set delivered at a predetermined quality level, said
`predetermined quality level having been set for legacy content if the LCS
`determines that use is not authorized.
`
`25. (original) The method of claim 24, further comprising:
`embedding at least one robust open watermark into the copy of the
`requested content data set before the requested content data is delivered to the
`SU, said watermark indicating that the copy is authenticated.
`
`26. (original) The method of claim 25, wherein the robust watermark is embedded
`using any one of a plurality of embedding algorithms.
`
`27. (original) The method of claim 24, further comprising:
`embedding a watermark which includes a hash value from a one-way
`hash function generated using the content data.
`
`12
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1209
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`28. (original) The method of claim 25, wherein the robust watermark can be
`periodically replaced with a new robust watermark generated using a new
`algorithm with payload that is no greater than that utilized by the old robust
`watermark.
`
`29. (original) The method of claim 24, further comprising the step of:
`embedding additional robust open watermarks into the copy of the
`requested content data set before the requested content data is delivered to the
`SU, using a new algorithm; and
`re-saving the newly watermarked copy to the LCS.
`
`30. (original) The method of claim 24, further comprising the step of:
`saving a copy of the requested content data with the robust watermark to
`the rewritable media of the LCS.
`
`31. (original) A method for creating a secure environment for digital content for a
`consumer, comprising the following steps:
`connecting a Satellite Unit (SU) to an local content server (LCS),
`sending a message indicating that the SU is requesting to store a copy
`of a content data on the LCS, said message including information about the
`identity of the SU;
`analyzing the message to confirm that the SU is authorized to use the
`LCS; and
`receiving a copy of the content data set;
`assessing whether the content data set is authenticated;
`if the content data is unauthenticated, denying access to the LCS
`storage unit; and
`
`13
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1210
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`if the content data is not capable of authentication, accepting the data at
`a predetermined quality level, said predetermined quality level having been set
`for legacy content.
`
`14
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1211
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`REMARKS/ARGUMENTS
`
`The Applicants thank Examiner Avery for the time and consideration in
`providing the Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief dated July 31, 2007
`(Paper No. 200070725). Applicants further appreciate the Examiner's suggestion to
`file a Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") on or about August 6, 2007. The
`Advisory Action is quoted here for reference [emphasis added]:
`
`"Continuation of 11. does NOT place the application in condition for
`allowance because: Though the Applicant provides further explanation
`with regards to the terminology found within the claim language (e.g.,
`'legacy content' and predetermined quality level'), said terminology can
`possess more than one broad interpretation. Although the claims are
`interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification
`are not read in the claims. See in re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26
`USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Additional
`language
`from
`the
`Specification inserted into the claim language and/or supplementary
`language would further elaborating upon said terminology would help
`further narrow the level of interpretation of said 'legacy content' and
`'predetermined quality level'."
`
`Clarification is earnestly sought for the contention that "said terminology can
`possess more than one broad interpretation". Applicants submit that under MPEP §
`2111.01, "...during examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest
`reasonable interpretation." In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (citing In re
`Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)) ("In examining a patent claim, the
`PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim language, taking into
`account any definitions presented in the specification."). Additionally, cited here for
`reference:
`
`See MPEP § 2111.01
`"While the claims of issued patents are
`interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and
`other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied
`during examination. During enamiroation, the caims must be
`interpreted as broady as their terms reasoruatdy aOOow. In re
`American Academy of Science Tech Center, **>367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70
`USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004)< (The USPTO uses a different
`standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during
`enarnination the USPTO must give ciairros their broadest reasonabie
`interpretation.)."
`
`For at least the reason that the Advisory Action contends there is at least one broad
`interpretation, there can be no doubt there is support for the claim elements in the
`application as originally filed.
`
`15
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1212
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`Second, it is further submitted that Applicants are not "arguing limitations which
`are not claimed" (please see In re Van Geuns as presented at MPEP § 2145 VI &
`MPEP § 707.07(f) 91 7.37.08) as is apparently being asserted by the Office in
`referencing In re Van Geuns:
`
`See MPEP § 2145 VI "VP. ARGIJONIG LONOTATOOMS Wt-lOCH ARE
`MOT CLAMED Although the claims are interpreted in light of the
`specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the
`claims. In re Van Gems, 966 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. C.
`1993) (Claims to a superconducting magnet which generates a "uniform
`magnetic field" were not limited to the degree of magnetic field uniformity
`required for Nuclear Magnetic Resonance (NMR) imaging. Although the
`specification disclosed that the claimed magnet may be used in an NMR
`apparatus, the claims were not so limited.); Constant v. Advanced
`Micro-Devices, Inc., 848 F.2d 1560, 1571-72, 7 USPQ2d 1057, 1064-
`1065 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 892 (1988) (Various limitations
`on which appellant relied were not stated in the deigns; the
`specification did not provide evidence indicating these limitations
`must toe read into the claims to give meaning to the disputed
`terms.); Ex parte McCullough, 7 USPQ2d 1889, 1891 (Bd. Pat. App. &
`Inter. 1987) (Claimed electrode was rejected as obvious despite
`assertions that electrode functions differently than would be expected
`when used in nonaqueous battery since "although the demonstrated
`results may be germane to the patentability of a battery containing
`appellant's electrode, they are not germane to the patentability of the
`invention claimed on appeal.")"
`
`In fact, the pending application provides in haec vertu support for the claims,
`exemplary embodiments and definitions for the claim terminology. It is also the
`contention of the Applicants that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily
`understand the language of the claims as presented. Thus, it is respectfully requested
`that for at least these reasons the pending rejections be withdrawn.
`
`Third, as described in the MPEP and cited below, Applicants' choice of
`language is not a proper grounds for rejection. Applicants respectfully note that
`amendments to the claims were made as expressly suggested by the Office in at least
`one Interview (e.g., as best understood by the Applicants, suggestion of this nature
`conforms with MPEP 2173.02, cited below for reference). Applicants respectfully
`submit the clarification of the claim terminology should not result in prosecution history
`estoppel. However, it is unclear what standard the Office is applying "to narrow the
`level of interpretation", as directed by the Advisory Action. Applicants, thus,
`respectfully direct the Office to the following:
`
`See MPEP § 2173.01 "A fundamental principle contained in 35 U.S.C.
`112, second paragraph is that applicants are their own lexicographers.
`
`16
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1213
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`They can define in the cnaims what they regard as their invention
`essentianny in whatever terms they choose so gong as ">any
`specian meaning assngned to a term ns cnearny set forth in the
`specification. See MPEP § 2111.01.< Applicant may use functional
`language, alternative expressions, negative limitations, or any style of
`expression or format of claim which makes clear the boundaries of the
`subject matter for which protection is sought. As noted by the court in In
`re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 160 USPQ 226 (CCPA 1971), a ciairro may
`not be rejected soneiy because of the type of language used to
`define the subject matter for which paterut protection is sought."
`
`See MPEP § 2173.02 "The examiner's focus during examination of
`claims for compliance with the requirement for definiteness of 35 U.S.C.
`112, second paragraph, is whether the claim meets the threshold
`requirements of clarity and precision, not whether more suitable
`language or modes of expression are available. When the examiner is
`satisfied that patentable subject matter is disclosed, and it is apparent to
`the examiner that the claims are directed to such patentable subject
`matter, he or she should allow claims which define the patentable
`subject matter with a reasonable degree of particularity and distinctness.
`Some latitude in the manner of expression and the aptness of terms
`should be permitted even though the claim language is not as precise as
`the examiner might desire. Enaminers are encouraged to suggest
`claim language to applicants to improve the clarity or precision of
`the language used, but should root reject ciaims or insist on their
`ow preferences if other modes off expression selected by
`applicants satisfy the statutory requirement."
`
`For the additional reasons outlined in the MPEP above, Applicants respectfully
`request the Office to reconsider the claims as currently presented and withdraw all
`outstanding rejections. Applicants respectfully seek clarification in the interests of
`expediting allowance of the pending claims.
`
`Last, as MPEP § 707.07(j) states: "When, during the examination of a pro se
`application it becomes apparent to the examiner that there is patentable subject
`matter disclosed in the application, the examiner should draft one or more claims for
`the applicant and indicate in his or her action that claims would be allowed if
`incorporated in the application by amendment." Applicants are proceeding pro se and
`request clarification on how the cited claims can be rewritten if the terms "legacy
`content" and "predetermined quality level" continue to be objectionable.
`
`17
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1214
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1215
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`Pgior Asserted R*ctions under 35 U.S.C. i4 102
`
`§ 102 Repectbcns based on U.S. Patent 5,341,425 Q"Stuinger")
`
`Claims 1-31 stand rejected as allegedly anticipated by U.S. Patent No.
`5,341,429 issued to Stringer et al. (thereafter "Stringer"). See Page 2 of the final Office
`Action dated May 9, 2007.
`
`Claims 1-31
`In order for a reference to anticipate a claim, the reference must disclose each
`and every feature of the claimed invention, either expressly or inherently, such that a
`person of ordinary skill in the art could practice the invention without undue
`experimentation. See Atlas Powder Co. v. !recd Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1347, 51
`USPQ2d 1943, 1947 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1479, 31 USPQ2d
`1671, 1673 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Previously Presented Independent Claim 1 recites
`[emphasis added]: "A Docai content SOFVOT system (LCS) for creating a secure
`environment
`for digital content, comprising: a) a communications port
`in
`communication for connecting the system via a network to at least one Secure
`Electronic Content Distributor (SECD), said SECD capable of storing a plurality of data
`sets, capable of receiving a request to transfer at least one content data set, and
`capable of transmitting the at least one content data set in a secured transmission; b)
`a rewritable storage medium whereby content received from outside the LCS may be
`stored and retrieved; c) a domain processor that imposes rules and procedures for
`content being transferred between the LCS and devices outside the LCS; and d) a
`programmable address module which can be programmed with an identification code
`uniquely associated with the LCS; and said domain pvocessor permitting the LCS
`to receive digita0 content from outside the LCS provided the LCS first
`determines that the digita0 content being deilivered to the LCS is authoulzed for
`use by the LCS and if the digital content is root aasghoolzecl
`use by ttOne LCS,
`accepting
`the digital content at a predetermined quality level, said
`predetermined quality level having been set For legacy content." The Section 102
`rejection of Claim 1 is improper for at least the reason that Stringer fails to disclose or
`anticipate (1) "legacy content" or (2) "predetermined quality level".
`
`The final Office Action contends that Stringer discloses a conventional local
`content server ("LCS"), May 9, 2007 final Office Action at Page 2. This contention is
`respectfully traversed. First, Stringer allegedly teaches a thivd party that "[t]ransforms
`the original ephemeral material to its denatured version and wrapper and delivers both
`to user" (Col. 5 II. 58-60). Content received by users as taught by Stringer, is identical
`to that created by the author. Thus, there can be no anticipation that Stringer's alleged
`LCS could differentiate between users and authors, let alone legacy content and/or
`content prepared at some time after an LCS was in use. Specifically, Stringer teaches
`that a third party "...convert[s] purchased products to unlimited use and ownership"
`(see Stringer at Col. 9 II. 53-67; Col. 12 II. 4-12; and Col. 12 II. 40-48). Thus, the
`alleged authorization process of Stringer is apparently directed at a transaction without
`
`19
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1216
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`regards to the content's provenance. Stringer thus cannot anticipate an LCS as
`claimed.
`
`Applicants respectfully direct the Office to Stringer's eitpressly defined
`"parties" at Col. 5 II. 24-67: (1) "'Authors'. Authors, composers, producers, or creators
`of original material who have access to components needed to build original material'
`(2) "'Third Party'. Transforms original ephemeral material to its denatured version and
`wrapper and delivers both to user; does not need to be the author"; and, (3) "'User'.
`Neither a third party, nor an author, uses the trial, evaluation, and enabled versions of
`the ephemeral material; engages a transaction, either alone or in conjunction with a
`third party". Stringer's parties inherently undermine the asserted rejections of the
`claims, for at least the reason that a user can be an author and a third party. A
`practical example demonstrates why-- access to the World Wide Web via a
`conventional PC by a user who may have uploaded user-generated content further
`demonstrates anecdotal defects in the Stringer reference as asserted art. At the filing
`date of Stringer, it is not even clear a prima case for anticipation can be made for
`Internet browsers let alone an LCS for handling legacy content or digital watermarks.
`Applicants respectfully request clarification on how the Office interprets Stringer's
`express definitions.
`
`Second, Stringer fails to disclose any means to differentiate content already
`owned by users— even newly transacted content received by users under Stringer is
`of "unlimited use and ownership" (see Stringer at Col. 9 II. 53-67; Col. 12 II. 4-12; and
`Col. 12 II. 40-48). As disclosed in the originally filed specification, "it is the user's
`prerogative to decide how the system will treat non-authenticated content, as well as
`legacy content". Even, where Stringer allegedly provides identification— it is controlled
`by the third party and made without regards to the content. In fact, it is not possible to
`differentiate between parties, argued above, as no identifying information is made
`persistent under Stringer for the express reason that every transacted copy is of
`"unlimited use and ownership". No matter, identifying information is removed anyway.
`"To remove the watermark or other material and enable unlimited LA s e of the
`material, the denatured version of the material is subjected ... to ... any other
`technique that would serve to erase the watermark from the original material"
`(Col. 7 II. 51-57). Thus, the alleged parties of Stringer, whether they can even be
`identified as authors, third parties or users, can subsequently move content that is
`expressly disclosed as being identical to the original material -- in any manner they
`choose. This undermines the alleged utility of Stringer relating to an alleged ability to
`limit access to materials and any prima facie case for anticipation based on Stringer of
`the instant claims.
`
`Third, Applicants respectfully note that the "watermark[s]" of Stringer are not
`the "watermark[s]" of the instant invention[s], including the various types of
`watermarks described in the specification and claims, for at least the reason that the
`watermarks claimed herein are not removed or erased as expressly described by
`Stringer. Further, assuming for argument's sake, Stringer's alleged "digital watermark"
`
`20
`
`DISH - Blue Spike-408
`Exhibit 1010, Page 1217
`
`

`

`Appl'n No. 10/049,101
`Request for Continued Examination ("RCE") &
`Reply to Advisory Action of July 31, 2007 dated August 9, 2007
`
`is expressly "erased", the result would be an alleged conventional LCS that could not
`logically act on watermark information. Thus, Stringer does not teach, suggest or
`anticipate the digital watermarks of the claim[s]. If the Office continues to assert
`Stringer's "watermarks" as being the watermarks of the claims, Applicants respectfully
`request clarification on the interpretation being relied upon. Applicants respectfully
`point to 37 C.F.R. § 1.104 ("In rejecting claims for want of novelty or for obviousness,
`the examiner must cite the best references at his or her command. ... The pertinence
`of each reference, if not apparent, must be clearly explained and each rejected claim
`specified").
`
`Fourth, by teaching removal of identifying information, Stringer cannot
`anticipate the LCS of the claims which provides an environment for materials that are
`essentially identical save the version or status of the data (e.g., inter alia, initial, free,
`legacy, secure, compressed, unsecure, purchased, original, watermarked, signed,
`hashed, validated, etc.). It logically follows that Stringer fails to anticipate the claim
`element[s] "receive digital content from outside the LCS provided the LCS first
`determines that the digital content being delivered to the LCS is authorized for use by
`the LCS and if the digital content is not authorized for use by the LCS, accepting the
`digital content at a predetermined quality level". For these additional reasons,
`Applicants respectfully request the Section 102 rejections be withdrawn.
`
`Additional significant benefits over Stringer and the art are provided by
`example and reference to the originally filed specification and are intended to be
`exemplary not limiting in scope (please see for example Pages 11, 12, 15, 16, 23, 24,
`26 & 27 of the originally-filed specification):
`
`"These embodiments may include decisions about availability of a
`particular good or service through electronic means, such as the Internet,
`or means that can be modularized ... Consumers may view their
`anonymous marketplace transactions very differently becaus