11182271 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)

Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 2015

11182271 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2015)

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. 11/182,271 07/15/2005 Sung-Jin Park 678-3878 8793 66547 7590 12/31/2015 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER JAIN, ANKUR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/31/2015 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 SUNG-JIN PARK, KI-HO JUNG, and SANG-KYUNG SUNG ____________________ Appeal 2014-000991 Application 11/182,271 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 11, 13, 14, 18–20, and 22–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2014-000991 Application 11/182,271 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention concerns “a method and apparatus for processing a call to establish a call connection with a PTT service terminal engaged in a pre-established session.” Spec. 1:15–16. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for processing a call in a manual answer mode in a push to talk (PTT) over cellular (PoC) network, the method comprising the steps of: registering and authenticating an invited PoC client with a PoC server; pre-establishing a session between the invited PoC client and the PoC server by performing a negotiation of media parameters between the invited PoC client and the PoC server; receiving a call connection request message from an inviting PoC client by the PoC server; transmitting, by the PoC server, a query message to the invited PoC client to query whether the invited PoC client accepts the call connection; and receiving, by the PoC server, a response message from the invited PoC client in response to the query message, wherein the response message includes information indicating whether the call connection is accepted by the invited PoC client, wherein the session is initiated between the invited PoC client and the inviting PoC client when the response message includes information indicating that the invited PoC client accepts the call connection. Appeal 2014-000991 Application 11/182,271 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3–5, 11, 13, 14, 18–20 and 22–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 ¶ 1 for failing to comply with the written description requirement. Claims 1, 3–5, 11, 13, 14, 18–20, and 22–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Maggenti (US 2002/0077136 A1; June. 20, 2002) and Yates (US 2005/0186970 A1; Aug. 25, 2005). ISSUES Does Appellants’ specification provide adequate written description support for the “registering and authenticating an invited PoC client” limitation recited in claim 1? Did the Examiner erroneously conclude a combination of Maggenti and Yates teaches or suggests the “registering and authenticating” and “pre- establishing” limitations rejected in claim 1? ANALYSIS Written Description Claim 1 recites “registering and authenticating an invited PoC client with a PoC server.” The Examiner found Appellants’ specification fails to provide adequate written description support for this limitation because the specification does not disclose registering and authenticating an invited PoC client. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 9–10. In particular, the Examiner found that although Appellants’ specification discloses “registering” and “authenticating,” the specification does not “infer or suggest that PoC client A 100-A could be an ‘invited PoC client.’” Final Act. 2. In the Examiner’s Appeal 2014-000991 Application 11/182,271 4 view, “[a]t most, this portion of [Applicants’] specification suggests that PoC client A 100-A is an inviting PoC client.” Id. (emphasis added) Appellants argue their specification, in particular Figures 3 and 5, provide adequate support for “registering and authenticating an invited PoC client with a PoC server.” See App. Br. 2, 6 (citing Spec. Figs. 3–5, 11:3–7, 16–17); Reply Br. 1–2 (citing Spec. Figs. 3, 5; 11:17–22). Specifically, Appellants contend Figure 5 shows a pre-established session between an invited client and a server, and Figure 3 illustrates that pre-establishing a session involves registering and authenticating a client. See Reply Br. 1–2. Appellants argue that, considered together, these disclosures provide written description support for claim 1’s “registering and authenticating” limitation. See id. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive for two reasons. First, the portions of the specification cited by Appellants disclose registering and authenticating a client and subsequently sending the client an invitation. See Spec. Fig. 3; Fig. 5, items 600–605; Spec. 11:5–7, 16–19. Thus, at the moment the client is registered and authenticated, it has not received an invitation and accordingly is not an “invited client.” Therefore, although the cited portions disclose registering and authenticating a client, they do not disclose “registering and authenticating an invited client” as recited in claim 1. Second, the parts of the specification relied upon by Appellants disclose a process of registering and authenticating a client with an SIP/IP core, not the PoC servers disclosed in the specification. See, e.g., Spec. 11:5–7 (“[A] process of registering and authenticating the PoC client A with the SIP/IP core A is completed. Upon performing the . . . session Appeal 2014-000991 Application 11/182,271 5 establishment process, a mechanism for negotiating media parameters . . . is performed between the PoC client A and the home PoC server A.” (emphasis added) (reference numbers omitted)); see also id. Fig. 3, item 400. Thus, the cited portions of Appellants’ specification do not provide adequate written description support “registering and authenticating an invited PoC client with a PoC server” as required by claim 1. Obviousness In addition to reciting “registering and authenticating an invited PoC client with a PoC server,” claim 1 recites “pre-establishing a session between the invited PoC client and the PoC server by performing a negotiation of media parameters between the invited PoC client and the PoC server.” Appellants argue Maggenti does not teach or suggest claim 1’s “registering and authenticating” limitation because “the CD in Maggenti . . . is the ‘inviting’ device, not ‘an invited PoC client’ as claimed.” App. Br. 9. Appellants assert it is clear from the specification and claims that an “invited PoC client” is “the PoC client . . . being invited to establish as call.” Reply Br. 3. “Moreover, the CD in Maggenti . . . authenticates itself, not a server registering and authenticating the invited PoC client, as claimed.” Id. Appellants contend the Examiner’s combination of Maggenti and Yates fails to teach or suggest claim 1’s “pre-establishing” limitation because “eliminating a re-negotiation operation upon PoC request by performing the pre-establishment session between the PoC server and the PoC client, is clearly different from Maggenti . . . either alone or in combination with Yates.” App. Br. 9. We disagree. With respect to the “registering and authenticating” limitation, neither claim 1 nor Appellants’ specification explicitly defines Appeal 2014-000991 Application 11/182,271 6 “an invited PoC client” in the manner asserted by Appellants. And, as acknowledged by Appellants, Maggenti discloses that a communication device can “invite” itself to join a network. See App. Br. 9 (citing Maggenti Fig. 11). Thus, the communication device is both an inviting client and an invited client. Moreover, the cited portions of Maggenti disclose sending communication devices an “are you there” (AYT) message; communication devices that do not respond to the message are removed from a list of active participants. See Maggenti ¶¶ 184, 187. The Examiner found communication devices that receive an AYT message are “invited” clients under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term, see Ans. 10–11, and Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us this finding is erroneous. As for Appellants’ contention that Maggenti’s communication devices are not authenticated by a server, claim 1 requires authenticating an invited PoC client with a PoC server, not by a PoC server. In any event, Maggenti teaches that communication devices can be authorized by communication managers (CM). See Maggenti ¶ 247 (“[T]he CM’s SIP server rejects the request unless the CD can be authorized by the CM.” (emphases and reference numbers omitted)). Finally, regarding the “pre-establishing” limitation, claim 1 does not recite “eliminating a re-negotiation operation upon PoC request by performing the pre-establishment session between the PoC server and the PoC client”; therefore, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. DECISION For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3–5, 11, 13, 14, 18–20, and 22–28 under 35 U.S.C. §§ 103 and 112. Appeal 2014-000991 Application 11/182,271 7 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). AFFIRMED kis