Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 30, 2016

13274895 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/274,895 10/17/2011
66547 7590 03/30/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sung-Oh HWANG
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.
678-2438 CON 8394
EXAMINER
DOAN,KIETM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2016 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 SUNG-OH HWANG, EUN-JUNG KIM and
JOON-GOO PARK
Appeal2014-008372
Application 13/274,895
Technology Center 2600
Before JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4--11, and 13-30. Claims 3 and 12 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention "relates generally to a mobile broadcast system
supporting Mobile Broadcast Service (BCAST), and in particular, to a
method and apparatus for sending a notice of a notification event, like
Appeal2014-008372
Application 13/274,895
system and service changes, to one or a group of terminals." Spec. p. 1,
11. 17-20.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of transmitting a notification about
broadcasting services in a broadcasting system, the method
compnsmg:
detecting, by a network entity, a notification event related
to a broadcasting service;
generating, by the network entity, a notification message
about the notification event;
determining, by the network entity, which channel is
used for a transmission of the notification message; and
transmitting, by the network entity, the notification
message to a terminal or a group of terminals over the
determined channel,
wherein determining which channel is used for the
transmission of the notification message comprises determining
whether the notification message is transmitted over a broadcast
channel of a broadcast network or over an interaction channel
of an interaction network.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 25 and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Eaton (US 2006/0178128;
pub. Aug. 10, 2006). Final Act. 4---6. 1
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Examiner's Final Office
Action, mailed November 12, 2013 ("Final Act."); (2) Appellants' Appeal
Brief, filed April 11, 2014 ("App. Br."); (3) the Examiner's Answer, mailed
June 4, 2014 ("Ans."); and (4) Appellants' Reply Brief, filed August 1, 2014
("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2014-008372
Application 13/274,895
The Examiner rejected claims 6, 7, 15, 16, 21, 22, 27 and 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eaton and Fong (US 2004/0246930
Al; pub. Dec. 9, 2004). Final Act. 7-8.
Claims 8, 9, 17, 18, 23, 24, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eaton in view of Jou (US 7,113,783 B2;
iss. Sept. 26, 2006). Final Act. 8.
THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION BASED ON EATON
Claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 19, and 25
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 5, 10, 14, 19, and 25 as anticipated by Eaton.
Appellants first contend Eaton fails to disclose detecting a notification
event related to a broadcasting service and generating a notification message
about the notification event. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 2. In particular,
Appellants assert that "Eaton merely describes broadcasting an alert, i.e., a
notification, related to an emergency, such as 'earthquakes, tomados,
transportation accidents such as plane or train accidents, and so on.'" App.
Br. 8. "That is, the alert in Eaton is related to the emergency not a
broadcasting service." Id.; see also App. Br. 9-10 (presenting similar
arguments with respect to the recited generating a notification message
limitation).
Appellants' argument, however, fails to consider Eaton's disclosure
that the emergency event will affect, and thus be related to, the user's
service. For example, Eaton discloses that in the event of an emergency,
regular mobile communication operation will be inhibited and only status
message transmissions will be allowed. See, e.g., Eaton i-fi-f l 0, 13, 14, 16.
3
Appeal2014-008372
Application 13/274,895
As such, Eaton's event is "related to" a broadcasting service. Moreover, as
the Examiner points out, Eaton's notification event, relates to a broadcasting
service because the detection of the event results in the transmission of the
emergency notification message. Final Act. 3; Ans. 2--4. Therefore, we find
Appellants' arguments unpersuasive.
Next, Appellants assert Eaton's base station does not "detect" a
notification event. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 2-3. We disagree. Eaton
expressly discloses broadcasting an emergency notification message upon
the occurrence of an emergency situation. See Eaton i-f 13 (explaining when
the subscriber's cell is affected by an emergency situation, the system,
accordingly, broadcasts the emergency notification message to the affected
cells); Eaton, i-f 16 (describing that in response to an emergency situation an
affected area is determined). In other words, Eaton's system must at least
discover or find out about the emergency event in order to broadcast the
resulting emergency notification message, and, as such "detects" the
emergency event.
This broad, but reasonable interpretation of "detecting" is consistent
with the claims and Specification. For example, Appellants identify page
15, lines 1 to 4 of the Specification as support for the detecting limitation of
claim 1. This cited portion merely describes that "upon generation of a
notification event" the system creates a notification message about the
notification event. Similarly, page 15, lines 13 to 17 of the Specification,
identified as support for claim 19' s detecting, states that the terminal
receives the notification message and "operates in correspondence with the
notification message. For example, the terminal 403 informs a user of [the
notification event]."
4
Appeal2014-008372
Application 13/274,895
Claim 19 also recites receiving a notification message and detecting a
notification event based on the notification message. As such, a skilled
artisan would understand that reading or processing the notification message
is at least one way to "detect" the notification event. Given these expansive
disclosures of detecting in the claims and Specification, we are not
persuaded of error in the Examiner's interpretation.
Finally, Appellants contend Eaton fails to disclose "determining
whether the notification message is transmitted over a broadcast channel of a
broadcast network or over an interaction channel of an interaction network."
App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br. 4. In particular, Appellants explain
Eaton merely describes that "the base station broadcasts a
control channel that mobile communication devices in the cell
monitor to receive information such as pages alerting the
mobile communication device to incoming calls," which in no
way teaches or suggests that the network entity determines
whether the notification message is to be transmitted over a
broadcast channel of a broadcast network or over an interaction
channel of an interaction network.
App. Br. 10-11.
As the Examiner explains, though, Eaton describes the
communication system may communicate over the public switched
telephone network and the Internet, as well as broadcasting over a control
channel. Final Act. 3; Eaton i-fi-f 12-13. Eaton also expressly discloses that
the emergency notification message is broadcast over a control channel.
Final Act. 3; Eaton i-fi-f 13, 16. Eaton, then, discloses determining whether to
transmit the notification message over a broadcast channel of a broadcast
network (i.e., the control channel of the broadcast network) or an interaction
channel of an interaction network (i.e., the public switched telephone
network or the Internet). See Final Act. 3; Ans. 4--5. Appellants fail to
5
Appeal2014-008372
Application 13/274,895
persuasively respond to these findings, and, therefore, we are not persuaded
of error.
Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above and by the Examiner,
we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 10, 19,
and 25 as well as claims 5 and 14, not argued with particularity (App. Br.
17-18). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims.
Claims 2, 11, 20, and 26
In rejecting claims 2, 11, 20, and 26, the Examiner relies on
paragraphs 13 and 16 of Eaton. Final Act. 6. We understand, then, that the
Examiner finds Eaton's disclosure of broadcasting the emergency
notification message over a control channel is determining the availability of
a channel (Eaton i-f 13) and Eaton's determining the affected cells (with a
number of registered subscribers in those cells), to broadcast the notification
message to on a broadcast control channel is determining a number of
terminals that will receive the notification message. Eaton i-f 16.
Appellants contend Eaton does not disclose "determining an
availability of a channel and a number of terminals that will receive the
notification message," as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 5-6.
But Appellants' merely repeat the claim language and the cited disclosure of
Eaton. Notably absent is a persuasive explanation as to why the Examiner's
findings are in error. Appellants' blanket assertions, without more, are not
persuasive.
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 11, 20, and 26 as anticipated by Eaton,
and we sustain the rejection of these claims.
6
Appeal2014-008372
Application 13/274,895
Claims 4 and 13
We are persuaded, however, that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 4 and 13. See App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 6-7. Claim 4 recites "the
notification event includes at least one of a change of a service guide and a
start of the broadcasting service." Notably, it is the notification event that
includes at least one of the service guide and a start of the broadcasting
service. While Eaton's system may start broadcasting upon the occurrence
of the emergency situation, i.e., the notification event, the notification event
itself does not include either a change of a service guide or a start of
broadcasting service. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the cited
portions of Eaton do not disclose the limitations of claims 4 and 13 and we
reverse the rejection of these claims.
THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 6--9, 15-18, 21-24, and 27-30
Appellants present no separate arguments of patentability with respect
to claims 6-9, 15-18, 21-24, and 27-30. Rather, Appellants rely on the
arguments presented for claims 1, 10, 19, and 25. See App. Br. 18-19. For
the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1, 10, 19, and 25. Accordingly, for the same reasons, we
are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 6-9, 15-18,
21-24, and 27-30, and we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims.
7
Appeal2014-008372
Application 13/274,895
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-11, and 14--30,
but did err in rejecting claims 4 and 13.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5-11, and
14--30, but reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 4 and 13.
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-IN-PART
8