Ex Parte Watson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 8, 201410551242 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARK WATSON, DENIS FAUCONNIER and LAURENCE LAUTIER ___________ Appeal 2012-004825 Application 10/551,242 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARLA M. KRIVAK and CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004825 Application 10/551,242 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to the delivery of broadcast or multicast services to wireless subscriber stations through a communication network. Specification 1. Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method of providing a service to wireless stations through a telecommunication network, the service being identified by a unique service identifier stored in the telecommunication network and in at least one subscriber station among said wireless stations, the method comprising the steps of: - determining a paging identifier in the telecommunication network and at said subscriber station, by applying a hash function to a data string including at least part of the unique service identifier; - associating said subscriber station with the determined paging identifier; and - prior to transmitting information pertaining to the service over a broadcast channel, transmitting a paging message incorporating said paging identifier to the wireless stations. Appeal 2012-004825 Application 10/551,242 3 Rejections on Appeal Claims 1 – 3 and 5 – 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Sarkkinen (US Patent Application Publication Number 2003/0157949 A1; published August 21, 2003; hereinafter Sarkkinnen ‘949) and Calvignac (US Patent Number 6,785,278 B1; issued August 31, 2004). Answer 5 – 7. Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) as being unpatentable over Sarkkinen, Calvignac, and Sarkkinen (US Patent Application Publication Number 2004/0102212 A1; published May 27 2004; hereinafter Sarkinnen ‘212). Answer 7 – 8. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed October 10, 2011), the Answer (mailed December 7, 2011) and the Reply Brief (filed February 7, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ contentions. We concur with the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief and adopt them as our own, except as to those findings that we expressly overturn or set aside in the analysis as follows. Appeal 2012-004825 Application 10/551,242 4 Appellants contend Sarkkinen ‘949 does not disclose a group identifier or a paging identifier. Appeal Brief 8. We do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Independent claims 1, 5 and 8 do not recite a group identifier. Also, Sarkkinen ‘949 “provides for a long term service announcement procedure upon which a network may indicate what kind of multicast services the network is going to support on the air interface;” “a service identification or group identification, based upon which a UE is capable of knowing whether the UE [user equipment] is authorized to receive any of these multicasts,” and therefore “[t]his may be analogous to high level paging, without any acknowledgement from the UE.” Sarkkinen ‘949 ¶ [0033]. Appellants further contend, Sarkkinen ‘949 only discloses “the paging indicator channel should address all user equipments [sic] within the cell and not just particular ones which are to receive a subscribed service” and “[t]his is the case with the instant invention.” Appeal Brief 9. The Examiner finds just because Sarkkinen ‘949’s “paging indicator channel can be received by all user equipments [sic] within the cell does not necessarily mean that the paging information is directed to all user equipments [sic], the user equipment needs to make the determination whether the paging information is meant for it or for some other user equipment (see paragraphs 39 and 40).” Answer 9. We agree with the Examiner’s finding and do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive because Sarkkinen ‘949 discloses in paragraph [0039], “[I]f the user equipment detects that the lists contains service numbers which are also configured in the user equipment’s memory, the Appeal 2012-004825 Application 10/551,242 5 user equipment may check the multicast related information by monitoring the PICH channel.” Appellants contend Sarkkinen ‘949 “does not teach the skilled person to merge the Service Identifier and the Paging Identifier.” Appeal Brief 9. However, Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claims because the claims do not require service and paging identifier integration and therefore we do not find Appellants’ arguments to be persuasive. Appellants argue Sarkkinen ‘949’s radio access network [RNC] continuously sends multicast service announcements over the paging indicator channel [PICH] and therefore fails to disclose the claimed invention because “continuously” is not “prior” as required by the claims. Appeal Brief 10. The Examiner finds Sarkkinen ‘949, in paragraph 0034, discloses “the UE may try to find out what service the network is currently transmitting, and which service will be the next service” where the information is transmitted on a PICH channel that is devoted to transmitting Paging Indicator (PI) bits. Answer 11. The Examiner therefore concludes the information in Sarkkinen ‘949 is transmitted prior to the transmission of the service. Id. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and subsequently find Appellants’ arguments to be unpersuasive of Examiner error. Appellants further argue Calvignac does not address the noted deficiencies of Sarkkinen ‘949 and is not in the same field as endeavor as Sarkkinen ‘949. Appeal Brief 11. However, the Examiner finds Appellants’ Specification discloses “unique service identifiers can advantageously comprise a combination of an IP address associated with the service.” Answer 12; Specification 5, lines 1–2. We agree with the Examiner’s Appeal 2012-004825 Application 10/551,242 6 finding and further find Appellants’ argument is unpersuasive because Calvignac discloses “The present invention relates to network routing in general, and in particular to hashing address values for network communications.” Calvignac, column 1, lines 7–9. Thus, Calvignac is addressing the very same issue Appellants’ invention is defining wherein Calvignac is applying a hash function to a data string used in a network setting. Answer 6. Sarkkinen ‘949 is also in the field of network data transference as Calvignac.1 We find Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive of Examiner’s error and we therefore sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection independent claims 1, 5 and 8, as well as, dependent claims 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 and 10, not separately argued, for the reasons articulated above. Appellants argue claim 4 is allowable because the prior art does not disclose the “concept of the instant invention, namely, a link between the paging identifier and the subscribed service that ‘the identifier used for the paging group of the subscriber UEs incorporates data depending on the related service.’” Appeal Brief 13. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive because they are not commensurate with the scope of claim 4. 1 As stated in In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977 (Fed. Cir. 2006), “[t]he analogous- art test requires that the Board show that a reference is either in the field of the applicant's endeavor or is reasonably pertinent to the problem with which the inventor was concerned in order to rely on that reference as a basis for rejection.” Id. at 986-87 (citing Oetiker, 977 F.2d at 1447). Appeal 2012-004825 Application 10/551,242 7 Therefore we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 4 for the reasons articulated above. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. §103 (a) rejections of claims 1–10 are affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED tc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation