SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 4, 2021

2020000112 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2021)

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