Ex Parte Sung et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 29, 201311714075 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/714,075 03/05/2007 Sang-Kyung Sung 678-2769 1518 66547 7590 07/30/2013 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER EISNER, RONALD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/30/2013 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 SANG-KYUNG SUNG, JI-HYE LEE, and SUNG-JIN PARK ____________________ Appeal 2012-005004 Application 11/714,075 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-005004 Application 11/714,075 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 27- 30, 32, 33, 35-41, 43-45, 47, and 48. (Ans. 3). The Examiner withdrew the obviousness rejection of claims 31, 34, 42, and 46. (Ans. 3, 18). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is related to "a method, user equipment, and system for providing simultaneous multimedia services session by session in response to a user's request when a Push-To-Talk (PTT) over Cellular (PoC) system for supporting multimedia simultaneously provides media streams of the same media type from different sessions." (Spec. 1.) Independent claim 27, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal: 27. A first server for providing simultaneous multimedia services to at least one User Equipment (UE) on a session-by- session basis through a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) core network, comprising: a data transceiver for transmitting multimedia service data to and receiving multimedia service data from the at least one UE, and for receiving a simultaneous multi-service request message for requesting media streams of an identical media type in multiple sessions, the media streams of the identical media type being provided simultaneously in each of the multiple sessions, wherein the multi-service request message includes filtering-information for determining whether the first server transmits simultaneous multimedia service data of the identical media type on the session-by-session basis; Appeal 2012-005004 Application 11/714,075 3 a Participating Push-To-Talk Over Cellular Function (PF) composer for transferring media data received through multiple sessions to a simultaneous session controller; and the simultaneous session controller for identifying the multi-service request message received from the at least one UE, and determining whether to provide simultaneous multimedia services of the identical media type on a session-by- session basis according to the identified multi-service request message. (Disputed limitations emphasized). REJECTION1 The Examiner rejected claims 27-30, 32, 33, 35-41, 43-45, 47, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Balasuriya (US Pat. App. Pub. No. 2005/0124365 A1, Jun. 9, 2005). GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 2), we decide the appeal of the anticipation rejection of claims 35 and 36 on the basis of independent claim 35. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Based on the dependencies of the claims, we decide the appeal of the anticipation rejection of dependent claims 27-30, 32, 33, 37-41, 43-45, 47, and 48 on the basis of independent claims 27, 37, and 47. 1 The § 103 rejection of claims 31, 34, 42, 46 has been withdrawn by the Examiner. (Ans. 3, 18). Appeal 2012-005004 Application 11/714,075 4 ANALYSIS A. INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 27, 37, AND 47 Issue: Under §102, did the Examiner err in finding that Balasuriya expressly or inherently discloses "a data transceiver . . . for receiving a simultaneous multi-service request message for requesting media streams of an identical media type in multiple sessions, the media streams of the identical media type being provided simultaneously in each of the multiple sessions" (emphasis added), within the meaning of claim 27, and the commensurate language of claims 37 and 47? The Examiner finds the limitation at issue is disclosed by Balasuriya's teaching that "MS A uses two audio streams simultaneously: audio stream 1 which is granted in step 509; and audio stream 2 which is being sent in step 519. These two steps occur prior to step 523, where audio is being revoked from a MS other than MS A." (Ans. 22). Appellants contend: [A]s shown in FIG. 5, MS A only transmits audio stream1 to the PoC 201 at step 521, which in turn only transmits audio stream 1 at step 525. Meanwhile, MS B only transmits audio stream2 to the PoC 201 at step 517, which in turn only transmits audio stream2 at step 519. In the Examiner's Response to Arguments, the Examiner repeatedly treats granting of a floor corresponding to a stream and actual transmission of a stream as the same event. However, as shown in FIG. 5 of Balasuriya, mere granting of a transmission floor, which occurs separately in steps 509 and 5011, is a distinct event from actually transmitting a stream. (Reply Br. 2; See App. Br. 7-8). Appellants' contentions are persuasive. We agree with Appellants that Balasuriya's granting a floor allows an MS (mobile station) to stream one type media, but Balasuriya's granting a floor does not stream data. (See Balasuriya’s ¶¶ [0002], [0035]; Fig. 5; Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 7-8). Appeal 2012-005004 Application 11/714,075 5 Moreover, we agree with Appellants that MS-A only transmits or receives one stream for each media type at a time. (Reply Br. 2). Specifically, MS-A initially receives audio stream 2 from MS-B and PoC. When MS-A presses the push-to-talk (PPT) button, the PoC Server 201 revokes the audio floor to MS-B 209 via floor revoke message 523, thus stopping audio stream2 to MS-A. (Balasuriya ¶ [0035]; Fig. 5; ¶ [0002]). Then, MS-A streams audio1 to PoC and the other mobile stations 525. (Id.). Thus, Balasuriya’s paragraph [0035] discloses MS-A only transmits or receives one stream at a time for each media type. (Id.; Reply Br. 2). Therefore, the Examiner has not shown Balasuriya discloses the requirement of providing two or more simultaneous media streams of the identical media type. (Id.) For these reasons, on this record, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we reverse the anticipation rejection of claim 27 and of claims 37 and 47, which recite commensurate limitations. We also reverse the anticipation rejection of claims 28-30, 32, 33, 38-41, 43-45, and 48, which depend from claims 27, 37, and 47. B. CLAIMS 35 AND 36 Appellants contend claim 35's limitations of: "a controller for sending a multi-service request message to the server through the data transceiver, the multi-service request message for requesting media streams of an identical media type in multiple sessions, the media streams of the identical media type being provided simultaneously in each of the multiple sessions, wherein the multi-service request message includes filtering-information for requesting to simultaneously receive the media streams of the identical media type on the session-by-session basis," Appeal 2012-005004 Application 11/714,075 6 are not disclosed by Balasuriya. (Emphasis added; App. Br. 20). Appellants contend Balasuriya "provide[s] only one stream of any particular multimedia type at a time, to a mobile station." (App. Br. 18). Appellants rely on the informational content of the claimed "multi-service request message" that requests simultaneous "media streams of an identical media type in multiple sessions" to distinguish over Balasuriya. (App. Br. 16-20; claim 35). Appellants' contentions are not persuasive. Appellants' contentions are not commensurate with the broader scope of claim 35. (App. Br. 16-18). Claim 35 does not positively recite the user equipment transmits or receives "media streams of an identical media type in multiple sessions, the media streams of the identical media type being provided simultaneously in each of the multiple sessions." (App. Br. 20; claim 35). Moreover, we conclude the informational content of the "multi-service request message" recited in apparatus claim 35 is non-functional descriptive material and is not accorded patentable weight.2 3 Specifically, in claim 35 the informational content of 2 Cf. Functional descriptive material consists of data structures and computer programs which impart functionality when employed as a computer component. See Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (“Guidelinesâ€), 1300 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 142 (November 22, 2005), especially pages 151-152. (The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure includes substantively the same guidance. See MPEP, 8th edition (revised Aug. 2006), § 2106.01.) 3 The informational content of non-functional descriptive material is not entitled to weight in the patentability analysis. See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2006-1003, aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006)); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). See also MPEP §2111.05, Eighth Edition, Rev. 9, Aug. 2012). Appeal 2012-005004 Application 11/714,075 7 the claimed "multi-service request message" is not positively recited as changing or altering the function of the claimed user equipment: 35. A User Equipment (UE) . . . comprising: a data transceiver for transmitting data and receiving data from the server; a controller for sending a multi-service request message to the server through the data transceiver, [(Non-functional descriptive material)]. . . and processing data to display multimedia data received through the data transceiver; and a display for receiving the processed data from the controller and displaying the received data. (Claim 35). In particular, the informational content of the "multi-service request message" does not affect the claimed "processing data to display multimedia data received through the data transceiver" because the requested media streams in the multi-service request message are not recited as being the claimed "multimedia data received through the data transceiver." (Id.). Because the informational content of "a multi-service request message" is not accorded patentable weight, we find Balasuriya's SDP header (Fig. 6) in the floor request message discloses the claimed "multi- service request message." (Ans. 10). For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we sustain the anticipation rejection of claim 35 and of claim 36, which stands with claim 35. Appeal 2012-005004 Application 11/714,075 8 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 27-30, 32, 33, 37-41, 43-45, 47, and 48 under § 102. We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 35 and 36 under § 102. No time period for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). ORDER AFFIRMED-IN-PART tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation