Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 26, 2017

12627888 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 26, 2017)

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.
12/627,888 11/30/2009 Jun-Hyung KIM 671-22 (MJ 200910-017-1) 4898
66547 7590 04/28/2017
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
ALGIBHAH, HAMZA N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/28/2017 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JUN-HYUNG KIM, SUNG-OH HWANG, JI-EUN KEUM,
HO-YEON PARK, and BO-SUN JUNG
Appeal 2016-004870
Application 12/627,8881
Technology Center 2400
Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—15 and 17—19. Claims 16 and 20
have been canceled. See App. Br. 11, 13 (Claims App’x). We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-004870
Application 12/627,888
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally “relates to content providing services,
and more particularly, to the selection of a Content Delivery Network
(CDN) based on user location.” Spec. 11. A service request message is
received from a user device and the CDN is selected based on user location
information included in the request. Spec., Abstract. Claim 1, which is
illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method for selecting a Content Delivery Network
(CDN) for Internet Protocol (IP)-based services at an IP
controller, comprising the steps of:
receiving, by the IP controller, a service request message
from a user, wherein the service request message comprises
location information of the user and session description
information of the service;
selecting, by the IP controller, the CDN from a plurality of
CDNs in accordance with the location information of the user,
wherein the IP controller is outside of the plurality of CDNs; and
transmitting, by the IP controller, the service request
message to a control function module of the CDN for connection
of a corresponding delivery function module of the CDN to the
user,
wherein the control function module is configured to
select the corresponding delivery function module based on the
location information of the user and the session description
information of the service.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Foti et al. US 2009/0147779 A1 June 11, 2009
Siegel et al. US 2009/0191873 Al July 30, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-004870
Application 12/627,888
Narkar et al. US 2010/0208648 A1 Aug. 19, 2010
Boni et al. US 2011/0064205 Al Mar. 17, 2011
Li et al. US 2011/0078327 Al Mar. 31, 2011
Rejections
Claims 1—5, 9—11, 13, 15, 17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Boni and Li. Final
Act. 2—5.
Claims 6, 7, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boni, Li, and Narkar. Final Act. 5—8.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boni, Li, Narkar, and Siegel. Final
Act. 8—9.
Claims 12 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Boni, Li, and Foti. Final Act. 9—10.
CONTENTIONS
Appellants contend the combination of Boni and Li fails to teach or
suggest “transmitting, by the IP controller, the service request message to a
control function module of the CDN for connection of a corresponding
delivery function module of the CDN to the user,” as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 2—3.
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds:
According to the claim language, a delivery function
module is the element that is be[ing] selected by the control
function module based on the location information of the user
and the session description information service. Looking to
[Boni] fig 8 and paragraph 0047 for example, Boni teaches an
Emergency Services Routing proxy (ESRP) which can be the
3
Appeal 2016-004870
Application 12/627,888
claimed IP controller which selects a PSAP using LoST server
(which can be control function module) based on session
description information of the service (for example the identifier
“urn: service:sos” within the request message ) and the
geographic location of user device. Therefore, the PSAP is
mapped to the delivery function module since it is the element
that been selected by the control function module as claimed.
Ans. 12.
Appellants contend Boni fails to teach or suggest the disputed
limitation because Boni does not teach that the ESRP, which the Examiner
identifies as corresponding to the claimed “IP controller,” transmits the
message to the LoST server, which the Examiner identifies as corresponding
to the recited “control function module,” for connection of the PSAP, which
the Examiner identifies as corresponding to the claimed “delivery function
control module,” to the user, as required by claim 1. Reply Br. 3.
ANALYSIS
We agree with Appellants. Boni teaches that the ESRP receives a SIP
message including information identifying the SIP message as a request for
emergency service and information identifying the location of a user.
Boni 145. Boni teaches that the ESRP queries a LoST server to identify a
PSAP to which the SIP message is to be routed. Boni 147. Boni teaches
that the ESRP subsequently routes the SIP message to the identified PSAP.
Boni 152. As such, the Examiner’s findings are insufficient to show that the
combination of Boni and Li teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record not to sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1; of independent claims 15, 17, and 19,
4
Appeal 2016-004870
Application 12/627,888
which recite corresponding limitations; or of claims 2—5, 9-11, and 13,
which depend from claim 1.
Claims 6—8, 12, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Boni, Li, and various additional references. Each of claims 6—8,
12, 14, and 18 depends, directly or indirectly, from one of independent
claims 1 and 17. The Examiner has not established on this record that the
additional references relied on in rejecting these claims cure the deficiencies
of Boni as set forth above with respect to the independent claims.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejections of claims
6—8, 12, 14, and 18 for the reasons discussed supra.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—15 and 17—19 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5