Ex Parte Sung et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2013

11714075 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 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.
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 (“Guidelines”), 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