PTAB

IPR2013-00136

ZTE Corp v. ContentGuard Holdings Inc

Log In

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method And Apparatus For Processing Usage Rights Expressions
  • Brief Description: The ’884 patent discloses systems and methods for processing digital rights expressions. The invention addresses the computational burden of processing complex, grammar-based rights languages (like XrML) by translating them into a simplified, optimized "intermediate format" that can be processed more efficiently by devices, particularly those with limited resources.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Anticipation over Messerges - Claims 1-8, 14-20, 27-34, 40-46, and 53-70 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §102 over Messerges.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Messerges (Application # 2002/0157002).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Messerges, which discloses a Digital Rights Management (DRM) system, anticipates every limitation of the challenged claims. Messerges teaches converting a "rights document" (e.g., in a standard grammar-based format like XrML) into a more efficient, binary "Encoded Rights Table" (ERT) using a transcoder. Petitioner contended that Messerges' "rights document" is the claimed "rights expression in an original format" and that the generated ERT is the claimed "intermediate format." The ERT is used to control the usage of digital content on a device, fulfilling the patent's core functional requirements.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Messerges in view of Safadi - Claims 1-8, 14-20, 27-34, 40-46, and 53-70 are obvious over Messerges in view of Safadi.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Messerges (Application # 2002/0157002) and Safadi (Application # 2003/0126086).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that both Messerges and Safadi individually anticipate the independent claims. Safadi discloses a DRM system that translates rights expressions from an original DRM format into a "native DRM format" (an intermediate format) for use on a consumer device. The combination of Messerges' teaching of transcribing a rights expression into a simpler ERT representation with Safadi's teaching of translating between different DRM schemes renders the claims obvious.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Messerges and Safadi because both relate to improving DRM systems. The motivation would be to increase the flexibility and interoperability of DRM, allowing systems to handle multiple rights languages and create more efficient representations for a wide range of devices, including resource-constrained ones. This combination would promote efficiency and broader compatibility.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining known DRM translation (Safadi) and optimization (Messerges) techniques would have been a straightforward application of existing principles with predictable results.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Daniele in view of Stefik - Claims 1, 4-7, 19-20, 27, 30-33, 45-46, 53-54, 61, and 69 are obvious over Daniele in view of Stefik.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Daniele (Patent 5,444,779) and Stefik (Patent 5,629,980).

  • Core Argument for this Ground:

    • Prior Art Mapping: Daniele discloses encoding copyright and royalty information, originally in English, into multi-bit binary data (e.g., ASCII) and then into a two-dimensional glyph for enforcement. Petitioner argued this glyph system represents the generation of an "intermediate format." Stefik discloses a system for controlling the use of digital items using a formal, grammar-based usage rights language. Petitioner argued that it would have been obvious to express the rights information of Daniele using the more formal, structured grammar of Stefik before encoding it into the glyph taught by Daniele.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine these references to increase the efficiency and flexibility of rights management. Using Stefik's formal usage rights language would provide the benefit of supporting a wider variety of distribution rules and fee schemes, while using Daniele's glyph technology would provide a robust method for encoding and enforcing those rules on a physical or digital document.
    • Expectation of Success: The combination involved applying a known structured language (Stefik) to a known data encoding and enforcement system (Daniele), which would have been a predictable implementation for a POSITA.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional anticipation challenges based on Safadi, Erickson (Application # 2003/0046093), Daniele, and Hall (Patent 5,920,861). Further obviousness grounds were asserted based on combinations including Hall in view of Stefik, Messerges in view of Erickson, and Messerges in view of Daniele.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "means for generating an intermediate format" (Claim 27): Petitioner argued this term is a means-plus-function limitation under 35 U.S.C. §112, ¶ 6. Petitioner contended that the ’884 patent specification fails to disclose any corresponding structure (e.g., a specific algorithm) for performing the claimed function, instead describing only generic computer components like a "localizer," "simplifier," and "translator" in functional block diagrams. Citing a lack of definite structure, Petitioner argued that claim 27 and its dependents are indefinite.
  • "intermediate format": For the purpose of the IPR, Petitioner proposed that the broadest reasonable construction includes intermediate results from processing a rights expression that can be saved and later evaluated or interpreted to resume processing.
  • "grammar-based expression language": Petitioner asserted this term should be construed to include any suitable language with a predefined syntax and semantics that can be used to express a usage right.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requested institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-11, 13-22, 27-37, 39-48, and 53-70 of the ’884 patent as unpatentable.