Ex Parte PARK et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2019

14818776 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/818,776 08/05/2015
68103 7590 01/30/2019
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kyung-Mo PARK
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.
0201-0572-1 1070
EXAMINER
HAIEM, SEAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2422
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/30/2019 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
Exparte KYUNG-MO PARK, SUNG-OH HWANG, and
JAE-YEON SONG 1
Appeal2018-006814
Application 14/818,776
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, all the pending claims in the
present application. Claim 5 is canceled (see Claims Appendix). We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
The present invention relates generally to transmitting multimedia
data in a hybrid network (see Spec., Abstract).
1 Appellants name Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest
(App. Br. 2).
Appeal2018-006814
Application 14/818, 77 6
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for receiving a packet in a multimedia
system, the method comprising:
receiving, from a transmitting entity, the packet
including a header region and a payload;
identifying information included in the header
region; and
decoding data included in the payload based on the
information,
wherein the information comprises:
data unit type information including a value
indicating whether the data is a data unit of a complete
type,
an indicator used to distinguish media data
from another,
a flag indicating whether the data includes
more than one data unit, and
payload type information indicating if the
payload includes one or more control messages.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
RI. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Suzuki (US 8,098,388 B2, Jan. 17, 2012), Zhang (US
2008/0285501 Al, Nov. 20, 2008), Lee (US 2011/0299443 Al, Dec. 8,
2011), and Ylanen (US 2010/0329161 Al, Dec. 30, 2010); and
R2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Suzuki, Zhang, Lee, Ylanen, and Jorgensen (US
2002/0099854 Al, July 25, 2002).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
2
Appeal2018-006814
Application 14/818, 77 6
ANALYSIS
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Ylanen teaches or suggests
payload type information, in the header region, indicating if the payload
includes one or more control messages, as set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend that "the Message ID [ in Ylanen] only represents
the ID of the message packet 900, but does not represent whether the data
payload of the message packet 900 includes control messages" (App. Br. 9
( emphasis omitted)), i.e., the Message ID does not indicate if the payload
includes control messages. We agree with Appellants.
Here, the Examiner finds that under the "BRI interpretation the
'payload type information' is not restricted to a flag, so the message ID ...
show[s] the existence of the control message" (Ans. 4) and in Ylanen
paragraph [91] "'the data payload of packet 900 may include, at least
Message ID information ... ' [and] 'control messages' is one type of
'activity pattern information' which is in the payload" (id. at 4--5 (emphasis
omitted)). In other words, the Examiner's position rests on Ylanen's
Message ID being a control message and because it is located in the payload,
it represents that the payload actually includes a control message.
However, the Examiner seems to ignore that claim 1 requires that the
"payload type information" is in the information included in the header
region (see claim 1 ), not the payload portion. Therefore, at best the
Examiner has only directed our attention to arguably control messages in the
payload. As such, we agree with Appellants that "the Examiner fails to
appreciate that Appellant[s'] claimed 'payload type information' is claimed
as being comprised by information included in a header of a packet" (Reply
Br. 6). In other words, even if Ylanen's "Message ID" is associated with
"control messages" in the payload, the Examiner is not showing such
3
Appeal2018-006814
Application 14/818, 77 6
information in the header portion of the packet, as required by sole
independent claim 1.
Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Ylanen teaches
"payload type information" in the header region, given that the Examiner is
only relying on information present in the payload portion. The Examiner
also has not found that any of the other references of record teach this
feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claims 1--4.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4 is reversed.
REVERSED
4