SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 4, 20212020000112 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021) 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. 16/025,621 07/02/2018 Ka-Ram KO Q240824 1049 23373 7590 01/04/2021 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2000 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W. SUITE 900 WASHINGTON, DC 20006 EXAMINER JIA, XIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2667 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/04/2021 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM USPTO@sughrue.com sughrue@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KA-RAM KO, HEE SEO, JUNG-HWAN CHOI, and IN-GYU KIM ____________ Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–17, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Appeal Br. 2. 2 In this Decision, we refer to Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed May 20, 2019) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed September 30, 2019); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed December 19, 2018) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed July 31, 2019); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 2, 2017). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed systems and methods relate[] generally to an apparatus for providing a push notification service, and more particularly, to a server cluster for a push notification service, which includes a management server for managing connection between a push server and a mobile terminal and the push server for push notification, and a method for the push notification service. Spec., 1:20–24. “A push notification server is a gateway between a push notification providing server for a push notification service and a mobile terminal, and relays a push notification message sent from the push notification providing server to its connected mobile terminal.” Id. at 1:27– 2:1. When a push notification event is generated, a push server delivers event information corresponding to the push notification event to the mobile terminal. See id. at 3:11–19; 5:6–17. As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1–17. Claims 1, 6, and 12 are independent. Appeal Br. 17 (claim 1), 18 (claim 6), 19 (claim 12) (Claims App.). Claims 2–5 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1; claims 7–11 depend directly or indirectly from claim 6; and claims 13–17 depend directly or indirectly from claim 12. Id. at 17–20. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is representative. See Appeal Br. 8 (“Representative independent claim 1”). 1. A push notification system for providing a push notification service, the system comprising: a first server configured to receive a push notification from a push notification providing server; and a second server configured to deliver the push notification to an electronic device based on receiving the push notification from the first server, Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 3 wherein, based on a request from the electronic device to register for the push notification service with the push notification system, registration information for providing the push notification service is received and forwarded to the push notification providing server by the electronic device. Id. at 17 (emphases added). REFERENCES AND REJECTION The Examiner relies upon the following references: Name3 Number Published Filed Shenfield US 2005/0063335 A1 Mar. 24, 2005 Aug. 9, 2004 Yoshizawa US 2005/0251557 A1 Nov. 10, 2005 July 19, 2004 The Examiner rejects claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Yoshizawa and Shenfield. Final Act. 2–6. We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appellant and the Examiner focus their findings and contentions on claim 1; so do we. Appeal Br. 8, 15; Ans. 4–8; Reply Br. 4– 6. We address the rejection below and add any additional findings of fact for emphasis. 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 4 ANALYSIS Non-Obviousness Over Yoshizawa and Shenfield As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Yoshizawa and Shenfield. Final Act. 9–12. For the reasons given below, we disagree. a. Independent Claims 1, 6, and 124 Because claims 6 and 12 recite limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1, we focus our analysis on claim 1. The Examiner finds that Yoshizawa teaches or suggests the majority of the limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2–4. In particular, the Examiner finds, “[t]he presentities 14 receive[] information transmitted from the information delivery server as the first server recited” (id. at 7) and presentities 12 receive information from presentities 14 and deliver it to an electronic device as the second server recited (id. at 3). See Ans. 4–6. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds, “the combination [of Yoshizawa and Shenfield] teaches registration information forwarded to the push notification providing server by the electronic device.” Final Act. 4. In particular, the Examiner finds Yoshizawa teaches or suggests that its system “includes: a contents database 458 that stores contents delivered to users; a contents transmission control part 434 that judges transmission of contents, 4 In Ex Parte Ko et al., Appeal No. 2019-005231 (PTAB Dec. 30, 2020), the Examiner provisionally rejects independent claims 17 and 23 of co-pending U.S. Patent Application No. 15/655,662 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as claiming the same invention as independent claims 6 and 12, respectively, in this application. In that appeal, we affirmed the provisional, statutory double- patenting rejection of independent claims 17 and 23. See MPEP § 804(I)(B)(2). Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 5 based on users’ presence information; and a contents registration part 435 that registers contents in the contents database 458” (id. at 3–4 (citing Yoshizawa ¶ 57, Fig. 4)) and Shenfield teaches or suggests, [its] registration message will also specify the URI or the endpoint that will receive these notifications (endpoints such as but not limited to the Notification Service 108). It is further recognized that external entities can also send the registration message to the service 102 on behalf of the device 100, as well as the registration message could be part of the initial message 112 (id. at 4 (citing Shenfield ¶ 35, Fig. 1)). Ultimately, the Examiner finds that a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the teachings of Yoshizawa and Shenfield to achieve the systems, as recited in claim 1. Id. Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 6 Appellant’s Figure 1 is reproduced below. Figure 1 depicts a structural diagram of a push notification system. Spec., 4:7–8. In Figure 1, a push notification system includes push notification server cluster 100, push notification providing server 200, and mobile terminal 300; and push notification server cluster 100 includes delivery server cluster 110, management server cluster 120, first push server 130, second push server 140, and nth push server 150. Id. at 4:29–5:4. Push notification server cluster 100 manages push server information for at least one push server and push registration information for connection with mobile terminal 300, and determines a push server to be connected with mobile terminal 300. Id. at 5:6–8. Delivery server cluster 110 delivers a Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 7 push notification event received from push notification providing server 200 to the push server connected with mobile terminal 300. Id. at 5:10–13. Yoshizawa’s Figure 3 is reproduced below. Figure 3 depicts “how presence information and real contents information transmitted and received among presentities[5] flow on an actual network.” Yoshizawa ¶ 21. In particular, Yoshizawa explains, In FIG. 3, thin solid lines indicate the flow of presence information. On the other hand, thick solid lines indicate the flow of contents delivery. This is because, in this embodiment, since the presence server does not store actual contents, actual 5 Yoshizawa explains, “the users must have an account on presence service provided by service providers. Such an account is [referred] to as presentity.” Yoshizawa ¶ 7. We understand the term “presentity” to be a known combination of the words “presence” and “entity.” Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 8 contents are delivered by the information delivery server 4, in accordance with change in the presence information of the user communication terminals or a contents delivery request from the user communication terminals. Id. ¶ 56 (emphasis added). Referring to its Figure 2, Yoshizawa further explains, “presentities 12-1 to 12-n for the user communication terminals and presentities 14-1 to 14-m for the information delivery server which are formed on the presence service 10.” Id. ¶ 51. Further, Yoshizawa explains, On the presence service 10, information transmission and reception between the information delivery server 4 and the user communication terminals 2 or among the user communication terminals 2-1 to 2-n is all performed through presentities. In FIG. 2, the arrows connecting between the presentities 12-1 and 14-1 indicate that presence information flows bi-directionally through the presentity. Id. ¶ 53 (emphases added). In the Answer, the Examiner clarifies its mapping of the teachings of Appellant’s Figure 1 to Yoshizawa’s Figure 3, as follows: Ans. 3. The Examiner provides a similar mapping in the Final Office Action. See Final Act. 2–3 (citing Yoshizawa, Fig. 3). Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 9 Referring to Yoshizawa’s Figure, 3, the Examiner explains: Item 4 is connected to 14-1 included in item 3 . . . , as item 200 is connected to item 110 included in item 100 . . . ; item 14- 1 is connected to 12-1 - 12-n . . . , as item 110 is connected to item 130-150 . . . ; 12-n is connected to item 2-n . . . , as item 150 is connected to item 300; item 2-n is connected to item 4, as item 300 is connected item 200 . . . . Ans. 3–4. Based on this mapping, Appellant understands that the Examiner finds, “the recited ‘first server’ corresponds to ‘[presentity 14 in Yoshizawa] configured to receive a push notification from a [information delivery server 4 in Yoshizawa].’” Reply Br. 4. The Examiner clarifies, “the presentity 14 (14-1 to 14-m), as the first server, that receives the information from the information delivery server, as the push notification providing server.” Ans. 5. Further, the Examiner finds, the presentities 12 (12-1 to 12-n) (as the second server) receives the information from the presentity 14 (14-1 to 14-m) (as the first server) and transmits the information to the user communication terminal, 2-1... 2-n, as the electronic device recited in claim 1, wherein the information is from the information delivery server, as the push notification providing server. Id. at 6. We disagree. Claim 17 recites, “a first server configured to receive a push notification from a push notification providing server.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). Referring to Yoshizawa’s Figure 3, Appellant contends: At most . . . presence information flows between a user communication terminal (2-1), its corresponding presentity (12-1), the presentity (12-n) of the subscribing user, and the subscribing user communication terminal (2-n). There is no Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 10 “[presentity 14 in Yoshizawa] configured to receive a push notification from a [information delivery server 4 in Yoshizawa].” The information delivery server (4) in Yoshizawa (the purported “push notification providing server’) transmits “contents” (see Yoshizawa at ¶ 80) when a corresponding presence change is detected. There is no “push notification” received from the information delivery server (4) in Yoshizawa. Reply Br. 5–6 (citing Yoshizawa ¶ 72); see also Yoshizawa ¶ 56 (“On the other hand, thick solid lines [of Fig. 3] indicate the flow of contents delivery.”), Fig. 3. Appellant concludes: The presentities (14-1 . . . 14-m) of presence server (3) do not receive “push notifications,” much less from any “push notification providing server.” Instead, presence information is at most received from the user terminal (2), and the presence server (3) acts to notify the information delivery server (4) of that status corresponding to the presence information. See e.g., Yoshizawa at ¶¶ 73-77. Appeal Br. 10. We agree with Appellant. Similarly, claim 17 recites, “a second server configured to deliver the push notification to an electronic device based on receiving the push notification from the first server.” Appeal Br. 17 (Claims App.) (emphasis added). As Yoshizawa makes clear, however, information delivery server 4 delivers content, e.g., push notifications, directly to user communication terminals 2-1 to 2-n. Yoshizawa ¶ 56, Fig. 3; see id. ¶ 55 (“In the presence server 3, the presentities 12 (12-1 to 12-n) for the plural user communication terminals are formed to transmit and receive presence information between the user communication terminal 2 and the presence server. Similarly, the presentities 14 (14-1 to 14-m) for the plural information delivery servers are also formed.”). In particular, Yoshizawa explains, “[t]he reference numeral 3 designates a presence server which manages attribute information Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 11 of the user communication terminals 2-1 to 2-n. The reference numeral 4 designates an information delivery server for delivering information (contents) requested by the user communication terminals 2-1 to 2-n.” Yoshizawa ¶ 47 (emphasis added). Thus, Appellant concludes Yoshizawa does not teach or suggest that presentities 12-1 to 12-n of presence server 3 “deliver the push notification to an electronic device[, i.e., a user communication terminal,] based on receiving the push notification from the first server[, i.e., presentities 14-1 to 14-n].” See Appeal Br. 12 (emphases added); see also Yoshizawa ¶ 72 (“If presence information of a user communication terminal changes, the presence information is transmitted from the user communication terminal to the presence server 3 (S1001). Presence clients, including the information delivery server 4, receive notification of user’s presence information by filing push-type notification of presence information of a specific user with the presence server 3, or periodically requesting presence information from the presence server.”). Again, we agree with Appellant. Because we are persuaded the Examiner misapplies Yoshizawa’s teachings to the disputed limitations of claim 1, we are persuaded that the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 1, as well as claims 6 and 12. Consequently, we do not sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 12. Because the Examiner’s failure to show that Yoshizawa teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claims 1, 6, and 12 is dispositive error, we do not reach Appellant’s other contentions allegedly distinguishing claims 1, 6, and 12 over the combined teachings of Yoshizawa and Shenfield. Appeal 2020-000112 Application 16/025,621 12 b. The Remaining Claims As noted above, Appellant challenges the rejection of dependent claims 2–5, 7–11, and 13–17 for the same reasons as claims 1, 6, and 12. Appeal Br. 15; Reply Br. 8–9. Our reversal of the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 12 is dispositive with respect to the dependent claims. Because we are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 6, and 12, we also are persuaded the Examiner errs with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 2–5, 7–11, and 13–17. For this reason, we do not sustain the rejection of the dependent claims. DECISION 1. The Examiner errs in rejecting claims 1–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Yoshizawa and Shenfield. 2. Thus, on this record, claims 1–17 are not unpatentable. CONCLUSION For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner decision rejecting claims 1–17. In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–17 103(a) Yoshizawa, Shenfield 1–17 REVERSED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation