Ex Parte Miwa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 15, 2013

11256657 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 15, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YASUTAKA MIWA, KENJIRO KOMAKI,
and TETSUO WATANABE

Appeal 2011-000895
1

Application 11/256,657
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and DAVID C.
McKONE, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
The real party in interest is Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. (App Br.
2.)
Appeal 2011-000895
Application 11/256,657

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1-14. (App. Br. 5.) We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appellants’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and system for setting up a network
identifier in a wireless network wherein terminals belonging to a same basic
service set (BSS) are uniquely identified via an assigned BSS-ID. (Spec. 1-
2.) In particular, each network identifier associated with a terminal includes
an application identifier that identifies an application being executed therein,
as well as the status of the application. (Id. at 4.)
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 further illustrates the invention. It reads as
follows:
1. A method for communicating in a network, comprising
the steps of:
acquiring a network identifier in a user device, wherein
the network identifier includes an application identifier that
identifies an application executed in the user device.

Prior Art Relied Upon
Harma US 2001/0053691 A1 Dec. 20, 2001
Harvey US 2004/0198392 A1 Oct. 7, 2004

Appeal 2011-000895
Application 11/256,657

3
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
1. Claims 1-4 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Harma.
2. Claims 5-7 and 9-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Harma and Harvey.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 11-21, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-3.

Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 102, did the Examiner err in
finding that Harma describes a user device containing a network identifier
including an application identifier identifying an application being executed
in the user device, as recited in claim 1?

Appellants argue that Harma does not describe the disputed
limitations emphasized above. (App. Br. 15-18, Reply Br. 2-3.) In
particular, Appellants argue that because Harma discloses an interface that
allows a user of a first telecommunication terminal to select a game as well
as another user against whom to play the selected game locally, no network
is required. Therefore, Appellants contend, Harma does not describe an
identifier that identifies a network. (Id.)
In response, the Examiner construes a network identifier as any means
of identification within a network, and thereby finds Harma’s disclosure of
Appeal 2011-000895
Application 11/256,657

4
identifying a user terminal within a network describes the network identifier.
(Ans. 12.)
Based upon our review of the record before us, we find no error with
the Examiner’s anticipation rejection regarding claim 1. We note at the
outset that the disputed claim limitation merely requires a network identifier
including an identifier that identifies an application being executed in a
device. Thus, contrary to Appellants’ argument, the network identifier need
not identify a network. Rather, it needs to identify an application being
executed in a user device. Harma discloses a method for setting up a gaming
session between mobile devices in a telecommunication network.
(Abstract.) In particular, a user at a first terminal transmits to the user of a
second terminal a proposal containing the identification information of the
first user as well as that of the game to be played. Upon the second user
accepting the first user’s proposal, the identified game therein is executed
between the parties. ([0038], [0039].) We find Harma’s disclosure of
identifying a game being played between the parties describes identifying an
application being executed in a user terminal. Thus, consistent with our
claim construction above, we find Harma’s disclosure of an application
identifier in a user terminal describes the network identifier. It follows that
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Regarding the rejection of claim 3, Appellants argue that Harma does
not describe that the network identifier is searchable. (App. Br. 17.) In
response, the Examiner finds Harma’s disclosure of searching a proposal
including the network identifier (a.k.a. application identifier) describes the
Appeal 2011-000895
Application 11/256,657

5
disputed limitation. (Ans. 14.) Appellants have not addressed this specific
finding made by the Examiner. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3.
Regarding the rejection of claim 8, Appellants argue that Harma does
not describe establishing a wireless network between the devices based on
the network identifier. (App. Br. 17-18.) This argument is not persuasive.
In particular, we agree with the Examiner that Harma’s disclosure of
allowing two mobile user terminals to participate remotely in an identified
game [00038] describes establishing a wireless network based upon a
network identifier. (Ans. 15-16.) Accordingly, Appellants have not shown
error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8.
As to the rejection of claims 2 and 4, Appellants argue that Harma
does not describe that the network identifier includes a status value
indicating the execution status of the application. (App. Br. 18.) In
response, the Examiner finds Harma’s disclosure of the proposal including
an application identifier along with other complexities associated therewith
describes that limitation. (Ans. 16-17.) Appellants have not responded to
this new finding made by the Examiner. Accordingly, Appellants have not
shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 4.
Regarding claims 5-7 and 9-14, Appellants argue that the combination
of Harma and Harvey does not teach or suggests the limitations recited
therein. (App. Br. 18-21.) In response, the Examiner makes additional
findings and conclusions to rebut each of Appellants’ contentions. (Ans. 17-
25.) We note, however, Appellants have not availed themselves of the
Appeal 2011-000895
Application 11/256,657

6
opportunity to address these new findings in the Reply Brief. Accordingly,
Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection of those claims.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-14 as set forth above.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD