Ex Parte Kale et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

12967480 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/967,480 12/14/2010 Kaustubh Kale
126568 7590 06/23/2016
Zebra Technologies Corporation
3 Overlook Point
Lincolnshire, IL 60069
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.
SBL08823 1687
EXAMINER
PATEL, PARTHKUMAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
docketing@zebra.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAUSTUBH KALE and SLA WOMIR M. ZAKRZEWSKI
Appeal2014-008837
Application 12/967,480
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1-7, 10-14, and 16-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Motorola
Solutions, Inc. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-008837
Application 12/967,480
THE TI'-JVENTION
Appellants' invention generally relates to voice and data
communications between mobile data capture devices with Push-to-Talk and
Push-to-Scan functionality. Spec. i-f 1. The Push-to-Talk infrastructure is a
Voice over IP ("VoIP") infrastructure and the Push-to-Scan functionality
operates over the existing VoIP infrastructure. See Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A mobile device, comprising:
a control for activating a function of the mobile device, the
function comprising at least one of a Push-to-Talk function and
a Push-to-Scan function of the mobile device;
a processor coupled to the control, the processor executing
the function when the control is activated;
a transceiver coupled to the processor, the transceiver for:
communicating with at least one networked device
in a Push-to-Talk session over a local area network using
voice over internet protocol (VoIP) during execution of
the Push-to-Talk function; and
communicating product data, during execution of
the Push-to-Scan function, to the at least one networked
device over the local area network using VoIP while the
mobile device is communicating with the at least one
networked device in the Push-to-Talk session; and
a memory coupled to the processor for storing instructions
to execute the function by the processor.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-3, 5, 7, 10, 14, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Hawkins et al. (US 2007/0188448 Al,
2
Appeal2014-008837
Application 12/967,480
published Aug. 16, 2007) and ivfarkley et al. (US 2007 /0217436 Al,
published Sept. 20, 2007).
2. Claims 4, 6, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hawkins, Markley, and White et al. (US 8,065,443 B 1,
issued Nov. 22, 2011).
3. Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Hawkins, Markley, and Raiyani et al. (US 2004/0181461
Al, published Sept. 16, 2004).
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue:
There is no teaching or suggestion in Markley that the
instantaneously generated SIP session used to send the video clip
or other media occurs on a PTT session that is currently being
used by the SIP-based device to communicate with at least one
networked device. Instead, Markley discloses only what is
already known in the art; i.e.; that a SIP-based device can send
multimedia data over a SIP session, where the multimedia data
may presumably be stored on the CPE for later viewing by that
user, or by others within that user's family or "circle" of
authorized viewers. Accordingly, Markley fails to teach or
suggest "communicating product data, during execution of the
Push-to-Scan function, to the at least one networked device over
the local area network using VoIP while the mobile device is
communicating with the at least one networked device in the
Push-to-Talk session," as recited in claims 1 and 14.
App. Br. 10.
We are unpersuaded by Appellants' arguments. Instead, we agree
with and adopt as our own the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions
as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this appeal was
taken. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
3
Appeal2014-008837
Application 12/967,480
Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments that
Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, or that are
made in a conclusory fashion, are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We provide the following explanation for emphasis.
Markley teaches Push-to-Talk (PTT) session-based systems where a
SIP-based device pushes a video clip or other media file to another device
using an instantaneously generated SIP session. Markley i-f 98. We agree
with the Examiner that the PTT session disclosed by Markley is an
instantaneously generated SIP session. See Final Act. 7 (citing Markley
i-f 98). As is well known in the art, SIP sessions are used for Voice-over-IP
sessions. Thus, contrary to Appellants' assertion, Markley teaches or
suggests sending video clips or other media files using VoIP during a PTT
session currently being used to communicate with another networked device.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-7, 10-14, and 16-19 for which
Appellants do not present any additional substantive arguments for separate
patentability. See App. Br. 7-12.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 10-14, and 16-19 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
4