Ex Parte Robbie et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 26, 2013

11815702 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte LING ROBBIE, ZHANG JIALU,
WANG LIANG, and LU YUNJIE
____________

Appeal 2011-007539
Application 11/815,7021
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ).
Appeal 2011-007539
Application 11/815,702

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 15-25, which are all the
claims remaining in the application. Claims 12-14 are cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to implementing a session
based service in a mobile communication network. See Spec., 1:10.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for implementing a session based
service in a mobile communication network between mobile
terminals wherein the session based service requires an
exchange of control information, the method comprising the
steps of:
-transmitting control information of the session
based service in the body field of an Message Session Relay
Protocol (MSRP) message and
-identifying said control information in said body
field by means of a content type field of the MSRP-message.

Appellants appeal the following rejection:
Claims 1-11 and 15-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Bennett (U.S. Patent Pub. 2006/0149811 A1, July 6, 2006).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appeal 2011-007539
Application 11/815,702

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-11 and 15-25
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Bennett discloses a
content type field of the MSRP message?

Appellants contend that “Bennett fails to disclose ‘identifying said
control information in said body field by means of a content type field of the
MSRP-message” (App. Br. 8).
The Examiner found that “Bennett disclose[s] control commands
communicated via MSRP message[s] . . . where the message is identified by
specific content type of the MSRP message body fields” (Ans. 6-7). We
agree with the Examiner.
We start by noting that Appellants’ Specification states that “the
content type format of MIME is used to identify different types of control
information and content in the body field of the MSRP message” (Spec.,
9:28-30). In other words, Appellants combine the MSRP and the MIME
content type field to achieve the present invention. Similarly, Bennett
discloses that “[t]he media device sends control messages to the media
device as a multimedia message in context of a media session” (¶ [0003]).
Specifically, in Bennett, “[t]he mobile device 100 remotely controls the
DVD player 400 by sending commands to the DVD player 400 using the
MSRP” (¶ [0080]). In other words, Bennett clearly transmits control
commands to the DVD player utilizing the MSRP format.
Appellants further contend that “Bennett is completely silent
regarding any use of a content type field of a MSRP message, much less
using such a field to identify control information” (Reply Br. 4). We
Appeal 2011-007539
Application 11/815,702

4
disagree that Bennett is completely silent about a content type field, as the
Examiner has directed Appellants’ attention to Bennett’s Table 3 to illustrate
the content type field (see Ans. 7). Specifically, Bennett’s Table 3 shows
that a “mime_type\n” syntax is being used in the MSRP message (see Table
3, page 17; see also Table 1, page 11 and Table 2, page 15). Appellants
similarly use the “mime” type format to identify content type (see Spec., 9).
Here, Appellants fail to persuasively rebut the specific finding in Table 3 of
Bennett as proffered by the Examiner and merely argue that Bennett is
completely silent regarding any content type field, which we find
unpersuasive for the aforementioned reasons, as Bennett’s “mime_type\n”
syntax is clearly a content type field as previously conceded by Appellants.
In view of the above discussion, since Appellants have not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the
disclosure of Bennett, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of
representative independent claim 1, as well as claims 2-11 and 15-25 not
separately argued by Appellants, is sustained.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1-11
and 15-25.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
msc