Ex Parte Izdepski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 30, 2013

11086518 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/086,518 03/21/2005 Erich Joseph Izdepski N0105b/100773.55207D2 3381
57541 7590 10/01/2013
SPRINT NEXTEL CORPORATION
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
MAILSTOP: KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
EXAMINER
EDWARDS, JAMES A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2448
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/01/2013 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 ERICH JOSEPH IZDEPSKI and OJAS THAKOR CHOKSI
____________________

Appeal 2011-004770
Application 11/086,5181
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MARC S. HOFF, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-24.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The real party in interest is Nextel Communications, Inc.
2 Claims 2, 9, 13, and 17 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2011-004770
Application 11/086,518

2
Appellants’ invention is a system for posting web logging (blog)
messages, retrieving blog messages, and being notified of the posting of blog
messages by way of dispatch communications. The system includes a
wireless communications system capable of setting up dispatch
communications links between subscriber units and a dispatch server. Using
dispatch communications, subscriber units may send messages to a blog
server for posting by way of the dispatch server, may receive notification of
the posting of messages from the blog server by way of the dispatch server,
and may retrieve messages from the blog server by way of the dispatch
server (Abstract).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A system, comprising:
a web logging server adapted to register a subscriber unit for receiving
web logging service; and
a dispatch server is [sic] adapted to:
receive a subscription request for said web logging service from said
subscriber unit;
forward said subscription request to said web logging server;
receive a subscription response message from said web logging
server; and
forward said subscription response message to said subscriber unit.

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Mountain US 2004/0128622 A1 July 1, 2004
Bearman US 2004/0260820 A1 Dec. 23, 2004
Baldursson US 2005/0064852 A1 Mar. 24, 2005
Wieczorek US 2005/0066007 A1 Mar. 24, 2005
Jiang US 2006/0056361 A1 Mar. 16, 2006

Appeal 2011-004770
Application 11/086,518

3
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated
by Baldursson.
Claims 8, 12, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baldursson in view of Wieczorek.
Claims 3-5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21-24 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baldursson in view of
Wieczorek and Bearman.
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Baldursson in view of Wieczorek and Jiang.

Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed July 1, 2010), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Nov. 22,
2010), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Oct. 1, 2010) for their
respective details.

ISSUES
Appellants argue that the prior art cited by the Examiner (especially
Baldursson and Wieczorek) fails to teach dispatch communications or a
dispatch server in accordance with the meaning of the term “dispatch”
provided in Appellants’ Specification (App. Br. 12-13, 16-18).
Appellants’ contentions present us with the following issues:
1. Does Baldursson teach a dispatch server, as recited in claim 1, in
accordance with Appellants’ definition of “dispatch”?
2. Does the combination of Baldursson and Wieczorek teach or fairly
suggest dispatch communication in accordance with Appellants’ definition
of “dispatch”?
Appeal 2011-004770
Application 11/086,518

4
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“‘A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.’” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
The claims, of course, do not stand alone. Rather, they are part of
a ‘fully integrated written instrument’ . . . consisting principally of
a specification that concludes with the claims. For that reason,
claims ‘must be read in view of the specification, of which they
are a part.’ . . . . [T]he specification ‘is always highly relevant to
the claim construction analysis. Usually, it is dispositive; it is the
single best guide to the meaning of a disputed term.’

Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

ANALYSIS
CLAIM 1
Claim 1 recites a “dispatch server” adapted to receive a subscription
request, forward a subscription request, receive a subscription response
message, and forward said subscription response message.
The Examiner finds that Baldursson’s media server (922, 938)
corresponds to the claimed dispatch server (Ans. 6, 16). The Examiner finds
that “dispatch, broadly interpreted means nothing more than sending,
posting, or transmitting” (Ans. 16).
We do not agree with the Examiner’s finding. We agree with
Appellants that “a dispatch communication link” is defined in the
Specification as “a half-duplex voice communication link, where the link is
allocated to a single party at a particular time for transmitting voice
communication” (¶ [003]). Consequently, we further agree with Appellants
Appeal 2011-004770
Application 11/086,518

5
that one skilled in the art would have understood that a dispatch server is one
that supports voice communications using half-duplex voice
communications links, and a dispatch server is not the same as a generic
media server (App. Br. 13).
Baldursson’s media server supports “transmission of the image, video
and/or sound over the network” (¶ [0083]) but there is no disclosure that the
media server supports voice communications using half-duplex voice
communications links.
We find that Baldursson does not teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of claim 1.
CLAIMS 8, 12, 16, AND 20
Independent claims 8, 12, and 16 each recite “dispatch
communication.” As explained supra, Appellants’ Specification defines
dispatch communication as “a half-duplex voice communication link, where
the link is allocated to a single party at a particular time for transmitting
voice communication” (¶ [003]).
We agree with Appellants’ argument that neither Baldursson nor
Wieczorek discloses or suggests dispatch communications in accordance
with this definition (App. Br. 17). The Examiner is correct that Wieczorek
uses the word “dispatch” (Ans. 17), but its usage does not comport with the
concept of half-duplex voice communications.
We find that the combination of Baldursson and Wieczorek fails to
teach all the limitations of claims 8, 12, 16, and 20. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection.
Appeal 2011-004770
Application 11/086,518

6
CLAIMS 3-5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, AND 21-24
As noted supra, Baldursson in view of Wieczorek fail to teach
dispatch communications as claimed. We have reviewed Bearman and find
that it does not remedy this deficiency of Baldursson and Wieczorek.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 3-5, 10, 11, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21-24.
CLAIMS 6 AND 7
As noted supra, Baldursson in view of Wieczorek fail to teach
dispatch communications as claimed. We have reviewed Jiang and find that
it does not remedy this deficiency of Baldursson and Wieczorek.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 6 and 7.
CONCLUSIONS
1. Baldursson does not teach a dispatch server, as recited in claim 1, in
accordance with Appellants’ definition of “dispatch.”
2. The combination of Baldursson and Wieczorek does not teach or
fairly suggest dispatch communication in accordance with Appellants’
definition of “dispatch.”
ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-12, 14-16, and 18-24 is
reversed.

REVERSED

gvw