PTAB

IPR2015-00049

Microsoft Corp v. Optimum Content Protection LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition Intelligence

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Method and Apparatus for Content Protection Within an Open Architecture System
  • Brief Description: The ’470 patent discloses a method for securely rendering protected digital content (e.g., from DVDs) within a computing system having an "open architecture," such as a personal computer. The system uses a tamper-resistant "closed subsystem" to receive and decrypt the content, generating raw data. Combiner circuitry may add unprotected data (e.g., system graphics) to this raw data, which is then re-encrypted by the closed subsystem for secure output to an external display.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over Greer, Davis, and Pasqualino

  • Claims 1-4, 7-12, 14-17, 25, 29, 32, and 33 are obvious over Greer in view of Davis, and alternatively in further view of Pasqualino.
    • Prior Art Relied Upon: Greer (Patent 6,993,722), Davis (Patent 5,825,879), and Pasqualino (Application # 2002/0097869).
    • Core Argument for this Ground:
      • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Greer taught a multifunction entertainment appliance based on an open PC architecture that could play protected DVDs and combine the video with unprotected data, such as graphics for a user interface or audio from an incoming telephone call, thus teaching the "open system" and "combiner circuitry" limitations. Davis was alleged to teach the "closed subsystem" element through its disclosure of a secure, tamper-resistant "Secure Video Content Processor" (SVCP) with a hardware barrier, which decrypts content and prevents unauthorized access to the raw data. Davis also taught re-encrypting the video before it leaves the processor for output. Pasqualino was cited for teaching the use of the well-known HDCP standard to encrypt the final combined audio/video stream for secure output.
      • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would combine the system in Greer with the security features of Davis because Greer described DVD playback functionality without providing implementation details for protecting the content, a known problem and requirement for DVD playback on open PC platforms. It would have been a routine design choice to incorporate Davis’s secure processor to solve this problem. Further, the Content Scramble System (CSS) license for standard DVDs required output protection, motivating the use of Pasqualino’s HDCP encryption scheme, which was the industry standard for this purpose.
      • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): The combination involved applying known security techniques (Davis) and standard output protocols (Pasqualino) to a known type of system (Greer) to solve a predictable problem, leading to a high expectation of success.

Ground 2: Obviousness with Seo for High-Definition Content

  • Claims 5, 13, 21, 30, and 31 are obvious over Greer, Davis, and Pasqualino in view of Seo.

    • Prior Art Relied Upon: Greer (Patent 6,993,722), Davis (Patent 5,825,879), Pasqualino (Application # 2002/0097869), and Seo (Patent 7,366,402).
    • Core Argument for this Ground:
      • Prior Art Mapping: This ground built upon the primary combination of Greer, Davis, and Pasqualino. Petitioner introduced Seo specifically to teach the limitations in certain dependent claims related to "high-definition digital video data." Seo disclosed the use of high-definition content from emerging HD-DVD formats.
      • Motivation to Combine (for §103 grounds): A POSITA would be motivated to adapt the content protection architecture taught by the primary combination to support new, popular high-definition media formats, as disclosed by Seo. Using standard, emerging technology like HD-DVDs was argued to be a desirable and obvious modification to ensure product interoperability and market relevance.
      • Expectation of Success (for §103 grounds): Applying the established security framework to a new, but standardized, media format was presented as a straightforward and predictable design modification.

  • Additional Grounds: Petitioner asserted additional obviousness challenges, including grounds that relied on the core combination of Greer, Davis, and Pasqualino to invalidate numerous other dependent claims, and a ground incorporating the HDCP Component License Agreement to teach the specific use of HDMI outputs for claim 20.

4. Key Claim Construction Positions

  • "closed subsystem": Petitioner argued for the specification's explicit definition: "a subsystem that does not provide users a way to add hardware or software thereto or remove hardware or software therefrom." This construction was critical for mapping the tamper-resistant hardware taught by Davis, such as its SVCP with a hardware barrier, to the claims.
  • "open system architecture": Petitioner proposed the specification's definition: "a system configured to allow end users to add or remove hardware components and/or software modules conveniently." This allowed mapping the PC-based entertainment appliance of Greer, which had interfaces for adding components, directly onto this claim limitation.
  • "preventing access to the raw data outside of the closed subsystem": Petitioner argued this term means preventing access other than by sending encrypted data that can be decrypted for display purposes. This non-literal interpretation was asserted as necessary because an external display must inherently "access" the data to function, and a literal reading would render the claims illogical and inoperable.

5. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-33 of the ’470 patent as unpatentable.