Ex Parte LEE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 22, 2018

13956883 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/956,883 08/01/2013
23373 7590 08/24/2018
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Kyung-tak LEE
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.
Q205615 8157
EXAMINER
AJAYI,JOEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/24/2018 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KYUNG-TAK LEE and YOUN-GUN JUNG
(Applicant: Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.)
Appeal2017-010267
Application 13/956,883 1
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 3, 5-19, 21, 23--40, and 42--45. Claims 2, 4, 20,
22, and 41 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the Real Party in
Interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal2017-010267
Application 13/956,883
THE INVENTION
Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a first
communication device receiving a communication request from a second
device and determining a third communication device to process the
communication request based on surrounding situation information.
(Abstract.) For example, a smart phone may forward a call to a TV when
the user is not near the smart phone. (Spec. ,r,r 66-68.) Independent claim
1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method of communication information transmission
performed by a first device, the method comprising:
receiving a communication request from a second device;
obtaining surrounding situation information of the first
device, the surrounding situation information comprising
information related to surroundings of the first device;
determining whether a user of the first device is in a
vicinity of the first device based on the surrounding situation
information;
determining a third device, among a plurality of third
devices, to process the communication request according to the
determining of whether the user of the first device is in the
vicinity of the first device and according to device information
indicating functions of the plurality of third devices; and
transmitting information related to the communication
request to the third device according to the determining of
whether the user of the first device is in the vicinity of the first
device,
wherein the determining of the third device comprises
selecting the third device among the plurality of third devices,
based on location information indicating a proximity of the user
of the first device to each of the plurality of third devices.
2
Appeal2017-010267
Application 13/956,883
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5-17, 19, 21, 23-35, 37--40, and
42--45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Pelaez et al.
(US 2005/0096029 Al, pub. May 5, 2005), Grokop et al. (US 2013/0090926
Al, pub. Apr. 11, 2013), and Kadakia et al. (US 2005/0113108 Al, pub.
May 26, 2005). (Final Act. 2-20.)
The Examiner rejected claims 18 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pelaez, Grokop, Kadakia and Jonsson et al. (US
5,903,833, issued May 11, 1999). (Final Act. 20-22.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments present the following issue: 2
Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Pelaez,
Grokop, and Kadakia teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 limitation,
"according to device information indicating functions of the plurality of
third devices," and the commensurate limitations of independent claims 19,
37, and 38. (App. Br. 9-14.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments,
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Mar. 23, 2017) (herein, "App.
Br."); the Reply Brief (filed June 29, 2017) (herein, "App. Br."); the Final
Office Action ( mailed Sept. 16, 2016) (herein, "Final Act."); and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed May 18, 2017) (herein, "Ans.") for the
respective details.
3
Appeal2017-010267
Application 13/956,883
and we adopt as our own ( 1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken
(Final Act. 2-22) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal
Brief. (Ans. 2--4.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by
the Examiner, and emphasize the following.
In finding that Pelaez, Grokop, and Kadakia teach or suggest the
limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure in Pelaez of an "IP
multimedia subsystem" that, in response to a "call forwarding profile" set up
by a subscriber who "needs to leave his or her present location and
communication device," forwards, for example, Instant Messages, text
messages (i.e., "Short Message Service" messages), and Multimedia
Message Service messages to other communication devices according to the
profile. (Final Act. 2; Ans. 2-3; Pelaez Figs. 1, 2, ,r,r 61-69.)
Appellants argue nothing in Pelaez teaches or suggests the
requirement that a first device makes a determination to transmit to one of a
plurality of other devices according to information indicating functions of
those devices. (App. Br. 13.) Rather, argue Appellants, Pelaez selects
devices according to a previously established call forwarding profile. Id.
However, the Examiner concludes the broadest reasonable
interpretation of "determining ... according to device information"
encompasses "any procedure that merely made use of the device
information, even if indirectly." (Ans. 3.) The Examiner finds Pelaez
teaches or suggests the limitation at issue under this interpretation because,
in one example, when the user sets up the call forwarding profile, devices
are pre-selected based on device functions, such as ability to receive Instant
4
Appeal2017-010267
Application 13/956,883
Messages, text messages, and Multimedia Message Service messages.
(Final Act. 2; Ans. 2-3.)
We agree with the Examiner's interpretation and application of
Pelaez, particularly in view of the disclosure of one exemplary embodiment
in the specification, "[t]he first device ... may previously set a third
device ... for receiving information related to the communication request
depending on the type of the communication request." (Spec. ,r 96.) This
invokes the same indirect method of determining a device based on
functionality - i.e., pre-selecting devices based on message type - as the
method in Pelaez relied on by the Examiner. Accordingly, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 19, 37, and 38.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 1, 19, 37, and 3 8 over Pelaez, Grokop, and Kadakia.
We also sustain the obviousness rejections of claims 3, 5-17, 21, 23-35, 39,
40, and 42--45 over Pelaez, Grokop, and Kadakia, and of claims 18 and 36
over Pelaez, Grokop, Kadakia and Jonsson, which rejections are not argued
separately with particularity. (App. Br. 14--15.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5-19, 21,
23--40, and 42--45.
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). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5