Ex Parte Do et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 27, 2016

11870881 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111870,881 10/11/2007
66547 7590 06/28/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shin Hee Do
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
1398-12l(YPF200608-0020) 5724
EXAMINER
KIM, WESLEY LEO
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2648
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2016 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 SHIN HEE DO and HYE KYOUNG HWANG
Appeal2015-000883
Application 11/870,881 1
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final
rejection of claims 20-26 and 28-34.2 Final Act. 1, 3. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. (App. Br. 1 ).
2 Claim 27 stands objected to for being dependent upon a rejected base claim
but is otherwise allowable. Final Act. 7.
Appeal2015-000883
Application 11/870,881
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 20-26 and 28-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Jachner (US 2006/0253593 Al; Nov. 9, 2006),
Hawkins et al. (US 7,231,229 Bl; June 12, 2007) ("Hawkins"), and Chakra
et al. (US 7,801,284 Bl; Sept. 21, 2010) ("Chakra").
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
The present invention generally relates to a mobile communication
network, and more particularly "to a presence information delivery
apparatus and method for use in a mobile communication network, using
short message service (SMS)." Spec. 1. Independent claim 20 is directed to
a method and independent claim 30 is directed to a device. App. Br. 8-9.
Claim 20 recites:
20. An information display method for a mobile handset,
compnsmg:
rece1vmg a first input compnsmg a phone number and a request
for an outgoing call;
determining whether the phone number is for a member of a
user group; and
displaying, when the phone number is for the member of the
user group, presence information corresponding to the phone number,
before originating for the outgoing call.
ANALYSIS
\Ve have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. \Ve are not persuaded that A.ppeHants
identify reversible error. Upon consideration of the arguments presented in
the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, we agree with the Examiner that all the
2
Appeal2015-000883
Application 11/870,881
pending daims are unpatentable over the cited combination of references.
We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejection from
\vhich this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. \Ve provide the
following explanation to highlight and address specific arguments and
findings primarily for ernphasis.
Claims 20 and 30
Appe11ants contend Jaclmer does not teach or suggest displaying
"presence information before originating an outgoing caU'~ or that "the
outgoing call request is not transmitted to the server before the presence
information is displayed." App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds
Jaclmer teaches displaying presence information corresponding to the
destination number before originating the outgoing call. Ans. 5-6. \Ve
agree with the Examiner.
The claim language is specifica11y directed to "displaying, when the
phone number is for the member of the user group, presence inj(n'lnation
corresponding to the phone number, before originating.fbr the outgoing
calf' (emphasis added). \Ve note~ contrary to the Appellants' argument, the
claim is silent in regards to the invo1vernent or lack of involvement of a
presence server. See App. Br. 5; see also Ans. 3-4; see also Reply Br. 2.
Instead, the claim merely requires that presence information is displayed
prior to originating an outgoing call.
As cited by the Examiner, Jaclmer describes that the "request 250 may
be an actual attempt to initiate an immediate communication session with the
destination user 220 (e.g., by dialing a nmnber of clicking on a narne in a
GUI display) or a que1:v to deterrnine the availability (~/the destination user
3
Appeal2015-000883
Application 11/870,881
220 j(Jr aj1,tture communication session. For example, the destination user's
presence information may be displayed to the originating user 210
informing the originating user 210 that the destination user 220 is currently
unavailable for the communication session, thereby causing the originating
user 210 to send the request 250 for a.future cmmnunication session."
Jachner ~ 26 (emphasis added). In other words, Jachner teaches determining
future availability of a user by first acquiring a destination user's presence
infonnation and then sending a request for a future communication session.
/\s such, Jachner suggests displaying presence infonnation before
originating for an outgoing call. Appellants have not provided persuasive
evidence that displaying presence information conesponding to the phone
nmnber before originating for the outgoing call, as required by claim 1, is
not taught or suggested by Jachner's displaying of a destination user's
presence information before sending a request for a future communication
sess10n.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 lLS.C. § 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 20, as well as the rejection of commensurate claim 30,
not separately argued. 5'ee App, Br. 3, 6.
( 'la;n't'' }j ..... )6. ·)o 19 ('J'l/l iJ .... 14· _, ,/, -~'I k' k· _f k·(J,1 ~- ~ ,i. .t..- ""' - ""'
A.ppeHants have not provided separate arguments towards
patentability for dependent claims 21····26~ 2K 29, and 31····34. See App. Br.
6. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claims 21 ···26, 28, 29, and 3 l ···J4.
4
Appeal2015-000883
Application 11/870,881
DECISION
The rejection of claims 20-26 and 28-34 is 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5