Ex Parte LIM et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 27, 201612360959 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/360,959 01/28/2009 68103 7590 07/29/2016 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yeon-JuLIM 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 0201-0209 7380 EXAMINER SKRIPNIKOV, ALEX ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/29/2016 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): usdocketing@jeffersonip.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YEON-JU LIM, HWAN-JOON KWON, HAK-JU LEE, JAE- YOEL KIM, SUNG-RYUL YUN, HONG-SIL JEONG, and SERO MYUNG Appeal2015-003028 Application 12/360,959 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EV ANS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. EV ANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of Claims 1--48. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We REVERSE. 2 1 The Appeal Brief identifies Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 8, 2014, "App. Br."), the Reply Brief Appeal2015-003028 Application 12/360,959 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to configuring broadcast service data in a digital broadcasting communication system. App. Br. 2. The Invention Claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29, and 36 are independent. The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with some formatting added: 1. A method for configuring broadcast service data in a digital broadcasting communication system, the method compnsmg: mapping, in a frame, a first contiguous zone, corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data of a first type in the frame, and a second contiguous zone, corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data of a second type in the frame, wherein the broadcast service data included in the first contiguous zone and the second contiguous zone is sliced according to a number of service slicings allocated for each zone, wherein a number of service slicings for the first contiguous zone is different from a number of service slicings for the second contiguous zone, and (filed January 16, 2015, "Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer (mailed November 17, 2014, "Ans."), the Final Action (mailed January 27, 2014, "Final Act."), and the Specification (filed January 28, 2009, "Spec.") for their respective details. 2 Appeal2015-003028 Application 12/360,959 wherein each of the first contiguous zone and the second contiguous zone is a contiguous area in the frame. References and Rejection The Examiner relies upon the prior art as follows: Yoshida et al. Kim et al. 6,144,707 Nov. 7, 2000 US 2011/0188501 Al Provisional Apr. 13, 2007 Claims 1--48 stand rejected underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kim and Yoshida. Final Act. 2-22. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Final Rejections of Claims 1--48 in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred. We agree with Appellants' conclusions. We provide the following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and findings primarily for emphasis. We consider Appellants' arguments seriatim, as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 5-11. Mapping, in a frame The Examiner finds Kim discloses a method comprising mapping in a frame a first zone, corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data of a first type, and a second zone, corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data of a second type, in the frame. Final Act. 23 (citing Kim, Figure 8). 3 Appeal2015-003028 Application 12/360,959 Appellants contend, contrary to the Examiner's finding, that Figure 8 discloses the operations of a packet multiplexer which performs operations prior to outputting data that is subsequently constituted into a frame. App. Br. 6. Appellants argue the output of the packet multiplexer is randomized prior to being assembled into a frame. App. Br. 7. Thus, according to Appellants, Kim fails to disclose mapping a frame. Id. The Examiner finds Appellants do not define the claim term "frame." Ans. 23. The Examiner finds Kim discloses a frame within the IEEE Dictionary meaning, i.e., "a cyclic set of consecutive timeslots in which the relative position of each timeslot can be identified." Id. Appellants traverse the Examiner's finding that Appellants failed to define the claim term "frame." Appellants argue the Examiner's definition is the most general definition of a frame provided by the IEEE, such that a frame of a token ring network (see IEEE 802.5) from 1985 and a frame from a cellular Long Term Evolution (LTE) netv,rork comport \vith the basic definition of a frame. Reply Br. 3. Appellants further argue, however, the present application does not relate to networks from 1985 and thus, the basic definition of a frame relied upon by the Examiner is unreasonable given the recitations regarding frames in the present application and given the understanding of one of ordinary skill in the art. Id. Appellants contend the Specification recites: [i]n the physical layer structure, a control channel refers to a channel that transmits a control message for a transmission scheme in the physical layer. If the basic unit of a transmission signal is defined as a frame, one frame can be composed of a plurality of services and include a service index, location information, modulation scheme/ coding rate, and cell identifier (ID) for each service. The control channel can be transmitted 4 Appeal2015-003028 Application 12/360,959 independently of a data channel in every frame, since the service configuration and its associated information can vary frame by frame. Since demodulation for the control channel should be performed first in order for a terminal to receive a service channel, the control channel should be situated first in the frame. Reply Br. 3 (citing Spec., i-f 5). We agree with Appellants that the Specification defines the claim term "frame" such that the basic IEEE definition, adopted by the Examiner is not reasonable. Contrary to the Examiner's finding that Figure 8 of Kim discloses mapping a frame (Final Act. 23), Kim discloses "FIG. 8 is a view showing the operation of a packet multiplexer." Kim, i-f 30. Moreover, the figure text does not recite "frame." See Kim, Figure 8. As argued by Appellants (App. Br. 7), the packet multiplexer outputs multiplexed fields to a data randomizer. Kim, i-f 127. We find the cited portions of Kim fail to teach or suggest mapping various data zones in a frame, as recited in each of independent claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 and 36. A frame with a first contiguous zone, corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data of a first type, and a second contiguous zone, corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data of a second type The Examiner finds Kim does not disclose the claimed first and second contiguous zones. Final Act. 3. However, the Examiner finds Yoshida discloses apparatus for receiving broadcasting signals comprising a first contiguous zone, for a fast information channel (FIC), and a second contiguous zone, for a main service channel (MSC). Id. 5 Appeal2015-003028 Application 12/360,959 Appellants contend Yoshida discloses the "FIC thus formed transmits control information, such as multiplex configuration information (MCI) and other information." App. Br. 9 (quoting Yoshida, col. 8, 11. 6-8). Thus, appellants argue, the fast information channel (FIC) is not a "contiguous zone, corresponding to an entirety of broadcast service data," as claimed. Id. at 10. The Examiner responds the FIC contains data explaining a digital audio broadcasting signal and, therefore, the FIC is used for broadcast data. Ans. 25-26. Appellants reply one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that a broadcast signal may include control information, wherein the control information of the broadcast signal excludes broadcast data. Reply Br. 6. Appellants disclose a "frame consists of a P2 preamble and more than one service traffic." Spec., i-f 78. Appellants further disclose "the P2 preamble transmits control information including scheduling information indicating at which location in the frame each service traffic is transmitted, it is located ahead of service data so that the terminal can demodulate the P2 preamble first." Id. Thus, Appellants' Specification differentiates "control information" from "service data." Each of independent claims 1, 8, 15, 22, 29 and 36 recite "an entirety of broadcast service data" which we find is not taught by the fast information channel (FIC) of Yoshida. DECISION The rejection of Claims 1--48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is REVERSED. 6 Appeal2015-003028 Application 12/360,959 REVERSED 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation