11639248 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014)

Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 20, 2014

11639248 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 20, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BONG-YEN KIM AND JUNG-YON CHO ____________ Appeal 2012-000780 Application 11/639,248 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JOHN A. EVANS, and ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review2 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10–12, 14–18, 20, 22–27, and 29–403 as obvious. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE.4 1 The Real Party in Interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. App. Br. 3. 2 We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments which Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). 3 App. Br. 17. 4 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed April 28, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed August 23, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed June 23, 2011 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed August 19, 2010 (“Final Rej.”); and the original Specification filed December 15, 2006 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-000780 Application 11/639,248 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The claims relate to methods and apparatuses for transmitting event information between devices connected with a network, and a storage medium storing the method. Spec. ¶ 2. Claims 1, 11, 20, 26, 31, and 32 are independent. The claims have not been argued separately and therefore stand or fall together. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary Claim 1, which is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized: 1. A method for transmitting event information between devices connected with a network, the method comprising: determining whether a first device connected with the network receives event information from at least one second device connected with the network; if the event information is received, outputting from the first device at least one status information of the at least one second device included in the event information and at least one event resource, the outputting of the at least one event resource being based on information regarding the at least one event resource, the at least one event resource being mapped to the status information of the at least one second device corresponding to at least one event included in the event information, wherein the event is generated according to the status information of the at least one second device, wherein the information regarding the at least one event resource comprises location information of the at least one event resource and at least one attribute information of the at least one event resource, and wherein the first device receives time information from the at least one second device indicating a time duration during which the first device is allowed to receive the event information from the at least one second device. Appeal 2012-000780 Application 11/639,248 3 Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10–12, 14–18, 20, 22–27, and 29–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Hemphill (US 6,167,448; Dec. 26, 2000) and Weisman (US 2002/0112058 A1; Aug. 15, 2002). Ans. 4–12. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions. Whether Hemphill teaches or suggests “the event is generated according to the status information of the at least one second device” The Examiner finds Hemphill teaches or suggests an event is generated according to the status information of the at least one second device, because information file 233 includes further information associated with a given event indicated by an event notification message (ENM) 207. Ans. 5-6. That is, Examiner finds Hemphill describes the ENM as containing an information section 311 which provides information specific to a given event (Hemphill Fig. 3; col. 10, ll. 16-17). The Examiner further finds Hemphill’s ENM 207 shows status parameters contained within event information (eventsev = CRITICAL) (col. 10, ll. 59-60). Appellants contend Hemphill does not teach “wherein the event is generated according to the status information of the at least one second device,” because the event in Hemphill is not generated according to status information received by the management server (i.e., the first device). App. Br. 20–21. Appellants argue that, even assuming the information file 233 of Hemphill corresponds to the claimed status information, “the information Appeal 2012-000780 Application 11/639,248 4 file 233 is only disclosed as being associated with the event,” but “Hemphill does not suggest that the event is generated according to the information file.” App. Br. 21. We agree. We do not read Hemphill’s disclosure as teaching that the event is generated according to the information contained in the information file 233. Appellants state that Hemphill’s information file 233 corresponds to the claimed status information and is disclosed “as being associated with the event.” App. Br. 21. Appellants further note that there is no suggestion, explicit or implicit, that the event is generated according to the event specific information section 311. Rather, as the ENM is generated “in response to” an event, the event specific information section 311 merely provides information on the event, according to the event, and not vice versa (i.e., the event is not generated according to information included in the event specific information section 311). (Reply Br. 5) (citing Hemphill, col. 7, ll. 16–22). Appellants contend Hemphill certainly does not suggest that the event is generated according to information included in the event specific information section 311. (Reply Br. 5). We agree with Appellants and note that Hemphill discloses that the “Event Notification Message, or ENM 207, contains information that describes the management event and any actions required by the event. The ENM 207 is formulated based upon the particular event that occurred as reported by any one of the MAs 205.” Hemphill, col. 10, ll. 57–62. Thus, the information content of Hemphill’s ENM 207 Appeal 2012-000780 Application 11/639,248 5 depends upon the generated event, but Hemphill does not teach that the event is generated according to the information in the ENM.5 DECISION The rejection of Claims 1–3, 6, 7, 10–12, 14–18, 20, 22–27, and 29– 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is REVERSED. REVERSED tj 5 We do not reach Appellants’ further allegations of error because the foregoing issue is dispositive.