Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 22, 2013

10845001 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2013)

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.
10/845,001 05/13/2004 Soeng-Hun Kim 678-1463 7695
66547 7590 01/23/2013
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SOENG-HUN KIM, SUNG-HO CHOI,
KOOK-HEUI LEE, JOON-GOO PARK, SUNG-OH HWANG,
EUN-JUNG KIM, and KYEONG-IN JEONG
____________________

Appeal 2010-006876
Application 10/845,001
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 27, 30-32, 35-37, 40-42, and 45-46.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 Real Party in Interest is Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.
2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed October 19,
2009 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed March 8, 2010 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed January 7, 2010; and the original Specification
filed May 13, 2004 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2010-006876
Application 10/845,001

2

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to a mobile communication system
supporting a Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS) and a
method for transmitting MBMS control information for supporting an
MBMS service to user equipment (UE). This way the user equipment (UE)
can rapidly and simply receive MBMS control information for an MBMS
service. See generally Spec. 1:16-19; 4:4-10 and Abstract.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 27, 32, 37, and 42 are independent. Claim 27 is representative
of the invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized:

27. A method for transmitting Multimedia
Broadcast/Multicast Service (MBMS) control information for
supporting an MBMS service in a mobile communication
system including a network and a mobile station, the method
comprising:

configuring, by the network, a Secondary Common
Control Physical Channel (S-CCPCH) system information
MBMS message to include Forward Access Channel (FACH)
information for at least one FACH, the FACH information
including MBMS Control Channel (MCCH) configuration
information indicating that an MCCH is included within a
FACH of the at least one FACH; and

transmitting, from the network to the mobile station, the
S-CCPCH system information MBMS message including the
FACH information.

Appeal 2010-006876
Application 10/845,001

3

Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Benedittis U.S. 2003/0076812 A1 Apr. 24, 2003
Willenegger U.S. 2003/0207696 A1 Nov. 6, 2003
Sarkkinen U.S. 2003/0211855 A1 Nov. 13, 2003

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 27, 30, 32, 35, 37, 40, 42, and 45 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Willenegger and Sarkkinen.
Ans. 3-10, 12-20.
(2) Claims 31, 36, 41, and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Willenegger, Sarkkinen, and Benedittis.
Ans. 11-13.

II. ISSUE
The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner has erred in
rejecting claims 27, 30, 32, 35, 37, 40, 42, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Willenegger and Sarkkinen. App. Br. 9-25; Reply
Br. 1-4. In particular, the issue turns on whether Willenegger and Sarkkinen
discloses or suggests “the FACH information including MBMS Control
Channel (MCCH) configuration information indicating that an MCCH is
included within a FACH of the at least one FACH” as recited in independent
claims 27 and 37, and similarly recited in independent claims 32 and 42
(App. Br. 6-24; Reply Br. 1-4) (emphasis added).

Appeal 2010-006876
Application 10/845,001

4

III. DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions as to all rejections. We
adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We also concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and
further highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis
as follows.
Independent Claims 27, 32, 37, and 42
Appellants contend that the combination of Willenegger and
Sarkkinen does not disclose or suggest “the FACH information including
MBMS Control Channel (MCCH) configuration information indicating that
an MCCH is included within a FACH of the at least one FACH” as recited
in independent claim 27 and 37, and similarly recited in independent claims
32 and 42. App. Br. 6-24; Reply Br. 1-4. In particular, Appellants argue
that:
(1) Willenegger only discloses, in ¶¶0310-0315, a
signaling message including respective information of a
physical channel, a transport channel and a logical channel,
mapping information of a logical-physical channel, and
mapping information of a transport channel-physical channel,
and further discloses, in ¶0059 and ¶0065, that S-SCCPCH
and FACH as examples of the physical channel and the
transport channel, and mapping relations of “physical channel
(S-CCPCH) – transport channel (FACH) – logical channel”, but
fails to disclose or suggest a specific example of the logic
channel, and “the FACH information including MBMS
Control Channel (MCCH) configuration information
Appeal 2010-006876
Application 10/845,001

5

indicating that an MCCH is included within a FACH of the at
least on FACH,” and the relations between each of the included
information (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 1-3); and

(2) Sarkkinen merely discloses a logical channel
corresponding to an MBMS control channel (MCCH) and,
therefore, fails to cure deficiencies of Willenegger (App. Br. 12;
Reply Br. 3).

However, we do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive to
demonstrate reversible error in the Examiner’s position. In re Jung, 637
F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As correctly found by the Examiner,
Willenegger discloses a mobile communication system, shown in FIG. 1, for
supporting a Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast (MBMS) service by
transmitting MBMS control information (“‘Various types of control
information and service data may be transmitted to implement MBMS. The
control information comprises all information besides service data’ see
[0095]”). Ans. 12. Examples of MBMS control information include:
network configuring physical channel system information
("configuration or Reconfiguration ... Physical channel
information" see [0310]-[0313]) to include Transport channel
information (see [0312] and [0315]), the information including
logical channel configuration information ("Information on
mapping of logical channel to transport channel" see [0314])
indicating that a logical channel is included within a transport
channel of the at least transport channel (see [0050] and
[0059]). Since . . . the terms of transport and physical channels
being defined by W-CDMA by specifically stated in [0050],
[0059] and [0065] as Forward Access Channel (FACH) and
a Secondary Common Control Physical Channel
(SCCPCH). Thus . . . Willenegger teaches claimed limitation
"configuring ("configuration or Reconfiguration" see [0310]),
by the network, a Secondary Common Control Physical
Channel (S-CCPCH) (Note: S-CCPCH is defined as a physical
Appeal 2010-006876
Application 10/845,001

6

channel; see [0050] and [0065]) system information ("Physical
channel information" see [0313] and [0315]) MBMS message
("MBMS content" see [0309]) to include Forward Access
Channel (FACH) information ("Transport channel
information" see [0312] and [0315]) for at least one FACH
(Note: FACH is defined as a transport channel; see [0050] and
[0059]), the information including logical channel configuration
information ("Information on mapping of logical channel to
transport channel" see [0314]) indicating that a logical channel
is included within a FACH of the at least one FACH (Note:
FACH is defined as a transport channel; see [0050] and
[0059]). . . .

Ans. 12-13 (emphasis added).
As also correctly found by the Examiner, Willenegger discloses in
¶0059 and ¶0065 that secondary common control physical channel (S-
CCPCH) and forward access channel (FACH) are used as a common
physical channel and a common transport channel respectively, as defined
by W-CDMA, and in ¶0310-¶0315 that the physical channel (S-CCPCH),
the transport channel (FACH), and the logical channel are mapped along
with information on mapping of logical channel to transport channel
(FACH). In addition, Willenegger further discloses in ¶0198 that the
transport channel (FACH) is included in the physical channel (S-CCPCH) to
form a broadcast channel.
“Every patent application and reference relies to some extent upon
knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that disclosed . . . .”
In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488
F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons “must be presumed to know
something” about the art “apart from what the references disclose.” In re
Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). Persons skilled in MBMS
Appeal 2010-006876
Application 10/845,001

7

services are presumed to understand that, when MBMS control information
(MCCH) is transmitted over a common transport channel such as forward
access channel (FACH) as defined by W-CDMA and disclosed by
Willenegger (¶0059), the forward access channel (FACH) is necessarily
inclusive of information indicating that the MBMS control information
(MCCH) is included within the forward access channel (FACH).
In view of such a disclosure, we agree with the Examiner’s factual
findings regarding Willenegger, and find the Examiner’s factual findings are
supported by a preponderance of the evidence, including, for example: (1)
the forward access channel (FACH) is included in the secondary common
control physical channel (S-CCPCH), and (2) the forward access channel
(FACH) includes information indicating that MBMS control information
(MCCH) is included therein, i.e., “the FACH information including MBMS
Control Channel (MCCH) configuration information indicating that an
MCCH is included within a FACH of the at least one FACH” as recited in
independent claim 27 and 37, and similarly recited in independent claims 32
and 42. Ans. 13, 15, 17, 19. We also agree with the Examiner that
Sarkkinen is simply cited to establish that the logical channel is MBMS
control channel (MCCH), as previously disclosed by Willenegger. Ans. 13,
15, 17, 19.
For all the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not persuaded us
of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 27, 32, 37, and 42 and their
respective dependent claims 30-31, 35-36, 40-41, and 45-46, which were not
separately argued. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 27, 30-32, 35-37, 40-42, and 45-46 under 35 U.SC §103(a).

Appeal 2010-006876
Application 10/845,001

8

V. CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting: (1) claims 27, 30, 32, 35, 37, 40, 42, and 45 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Willenegger and Sarkkinen; and (2)
claims 31, 36, 41, and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Willenegger, Sarkkinen, and Benedittis.

VI. DECISION
As such, we affirm the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 27, 30-32,
35-37, 40-42, and 45-46 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2011).

AFFIRMED

msc