Ex Parte Gidron et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2013

10573832 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 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.
10/573,832 12/05/2006 Yoad Gidron 31305 (Mobilitec 5) 5200
46363 7590 07/30/2013
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
CHOO, MUNSOON
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
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 YOAD GIDRON, SHAI KAPON,
YARON GUR-ARI, and BENNY REICH
____________

Appeal 2011-002259
Application 10/573,832
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before THU ANN DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JEFFREY S. SMITH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-002259
Application 10/573,832

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 36-54 and 56-68. The Examiner has indicated claim 55
would be allowable if rewritten in independent form. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Representative Claim
Claim 36. Apparatus providing a platform for the provision of
services over a cellular telephone network, the apparatus comprising

an infrastructure for supporting a generic definition of a cellular
service, said generic definition incorporating common features of different
services, said generic definition being able to take specific service-defining
parameters, wherein the infrastructure facilitates the delivery of multiple
content types to different devices using different protocols; and

an external parameter setting mechanism for inputting respective
service defining parameters to said generic definition, thereby to implement
a desired service through said generic definition, said generic definition
includes consideration of resource constraints of the different devices.

Prior Art
Kloba US 2002/0052916 A1 May 2, 2002

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 36-54 and 56-68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Kloba.

Appeal 2011-002259
Application 10/573,832

3
ANALYSIS
Section 102 rejection of claims 36, 45, 51, and 62
Appellants contend that Kloba does not disclose “an infrastructure for
supporting a generic definition of a cellular service, said generic definition
incorporating common features of different services, said generic definition
being able to take specific service-defining parameters” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 9-13; Reply Br. 2-5. According to Appellants, the claimed
“generic definition” is defined in Appellants’ Specification as comprising at
least some features of a service, such as availability, discoverability,
findability, buyability, and obtainability. App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds
that Kloba teaches a server, or “infrastructure,” for supporting a collection of
channels, or “generic definition of a cellular service.” Each channel has a
way of finding content such as movies, music, or images, which describes
findability features of the channel service. Ans. 20-21. Appellants have not
provided persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding.
Appellants contend that Kloba does not describe “common features of
different services” and “specific service-defining parameters.” App. Br. 12-
14. The Examiner finds that the collection of channels incorporates
common features of different services, such as finding and displaying
information, or “common features” of the different channel services, such as
news, weather, and movies. Ans. 22. The Examiner further finds that Kloba
uses “specific service-defining parameters” such as channel name or movie
name to select a channel or movie. Ans. 23. Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence or argument to rebut the Examiner’s findings.
We agree with the Examiner for the reasons given by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer and Final Rejection. We adopt the Examiner’s
Appeal 2011-002259
Application 10/573,832

4
findings of fact and concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer. We sustain the rejection of claim 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 102. Appellants do not provide arguments for separate
patentability of claims 45, 51, and 62, which fall with claim 36.

Section 102 rejection of claims 37-44, 46-50, 52-54, 56-61, and 63-68
Appellants contend that Kloba does not disclose “providing a generic
definition of said service, said generic definition incorporating common
features of different services; selecting an appropriate one of said modules
for the content delivery interface according to a currently desired service and
said generic definition wherein said generic definition includes consideration
of resource constraints of the different devices” as recited in independent
claim 51. App. Br. 14-15. The Examiner finds that Kloba discloses this
limitation. Ans. 27-29. Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence
or argument to rebut the Examiner’s finding.
We sustain the rejection of claims 37-44, 46-50, 52-54, 56-61, and 63-
68 under 35 U.S.C. § 102.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 36-54 and 56-68 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Kloba is affirmed.

Appeal 2011-002259
Application 10/573,832

5
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

kis