Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 18, 2017

13980443 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/980,443 07/18/2013 Sung-Oh Hwang 0201-0849 2634
68103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
SHELEHEDA, JAMES R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2424
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/22/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNG-OH HWANG, KYUNG-MO PARK,
SUNG-RYEUL RHYU, and JAE-YEON SONG
Appeal 2017-000311
Application 13/980,4431
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1,6, 15, 17, 19, and 21—23, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to “transmitting a control message for a
multimedia service.” Spec. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced
below with the limitations at issue emphasized:
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-000311
Application 13/980,443
1. A method for providing multimedia content in a system, the
method comprising:
identifying a control message that defines a package
configuration of the multimedia content; and
transmitting the control message, the control message
included in a packet,
wherein the control message comprises:
a message type field containing information on a
type of the control message,
a length field containing information on a length of
the control message, and
an optional field containing information related to
a table, and
a payload field containing the table,
wherein the table contained in the payload field
provides configuration information of the package, and
wherein the information related to the table
comprises a table identifier of the table and version
information of the table.
Rejections
Claims 1,6, 15, 19, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Lahtonen et al. (US 2009/0103651 Al; Apr. 23,
2009) and Yun et al. (US 7,793,320 B2; Sept. 7, 2010). Final Act. 3.
Claims 17 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Lahtonen, Yun, and Suh et al. (US 2010/0162308 Al; June 24, 2010).
Final Act. 6.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lahtonen and Yun
teaches or suggests “the information related to the table comprises a table
identifier of the table and version information of the table,” as recited in
claim 1?
2
Appeal 2017-000311
Application 13/980,443
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “an optional field containing information related to a
table” and “the information related to the table comprises a table identifier of
the table and version information of the table.”
Appellants argue “Yun merely discloses a cell identifier, but it fails to
disclose a table identifier.” App. Br. 6 (emphasizing Yun 13:4—9).
Appellants further contend Yun “fails to disclose where an identifier is
located (i.e., ‘optional field’ of the claims).” Id.
We agree with the Examiner, however, that “Yun specifically
discloses transmitting an MGT [master guide table] including information
which indicates the identifier of a table . . . and version number of each PSIP
table.” Ans. 3 (citing Yun 13:16—18, 13:25—28, 13:48—55, Fig. 7); Final
Act. 4—5. In particular, Yun discloses, “The MGT defines the packet
identifier (PID) of the PSIP table excluding the STT, a version number and a
table size.” Yun 13:16—18 (emphases added).
We also agree with the Examiner that “one cannot show non­
obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the
rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981); Ans. 3^4. Here, “it is the combination of Fahtonen
and Yun which meet[s] the current claim limitations, as Fahtonen discloses
the claimed ‘optional field’ which indicates PSI ‘table type’ information and
Yun discloses the transmission of more specific table type information
identifying an identifier and version number of the table.” Ans. 4.
Appellants argue Yun’s data is not Fahtonen’s “type” and Yun’s
MGT in Figure 7 is “16 bits long” whereas “Fahtonen’s optional field is
eight bits.” Reply Br. 4. However, in addition to not raising this late
3
Appeal 2017-000311
Application 13/980,443
presentation of argument in their Appeal Brief and, thereby, waiving the
argument (see 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.41(b)(2)), we note “[t]he test
for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” Keller, 642
F.2d at 425. Given the Examiner’s findings (see, e.g., Ans. 4), Appellants
have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding a person of ordinary
skill in the art would have been motivated and capable of modifying
Lahtonen and Yun to provide the claimed identifier and version number in
an optional field.2
Appellants further argue “Suh adds nothing to cure the deficiencies of
Lahtonen and Yun.” App. Br. 7. We are not persuaded that Lahtonen or
Yun are deficient for the reasons discussed above.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and
claims 6, 15, 17, 19, and 21—23, which Appellants argue are patentable for
similar reasons. See App. Br. 7; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 1, 6, 15, 17, 19, and 21—23.
No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal
may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner also may wish to consider
whether the claimed “table identifier” and “version information” constitute
non-functional descriptive material because they are not elsewhere used for
any function in claim 1. See MPEP § 2111.05.
4