Ex Parte Stille et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2016

12996797 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/996,797 12/08/2010
120491 7590 08/29/2016
Leffler Intellectual Property Law, PLLC
2010 Corporate Ridge
Suite 700
McLean, VA 22102
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mats Ola Stille
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.
0110-637 1497
EXAMINER
DEAN, RAYMOND S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2016 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):
info@leffleriplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MATS OLA STILLE and JAN HOLM
Appeal2015-005558
Application 12/996, 797
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, ERIC S. FRAHM, and NATHAN A. ENGELS,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "the field of Push to
Talk over Cellular networks, and in particular to private communication in a
Push to Talk over Cellular network" (Spec. 1, 11. 5---6).
Appeal2015-005558
Application 12/996,797
B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAHvI
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method of sending a private communication to a
Participant in an ongoing Push to Talk over Cellular
Group Session, the method comprising:
at a Controlling Server receiving, from a source
Participating Server serving a source Participant in the ongoing
Group Session, a Session Initiation Protocol REFER message,
the REFER message having a Refer-To header that comprises
an identity of a target Participant in the ongoing Group Session
and a message content, wherein the target Participant is selected
from a plurality of Participants involved in the ongoing Group
Session and is fewer in number than all of the Participants
involved in the ongoing Group Session other than the source
Participant;
creating a Session Initiation Protocol MESSAGE
method, the MESSAGE addressed to the target Participant and
including the message content; and
sending the MESSAGE to a target Participating Server,
the target Participating Server serving the target Participant.
C. REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3-6, 9-12, 14, 15, and 17 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Li (WO 2007/107067, published
Sept. 27, 2007).
2. Claims 2, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Li and Ranjan (US 2008/0160906 Al, published
July 3, 2008).
3. Claims 7, 8, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Li and Forslow (US 2008/0285487 Al, published
Nov. 20, 2008).
2
Appeal2015-005558
Application 12/996,797
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
that Li teaches the claimed "creating a Session Initiation Protocol
MESSAGE method, the MESSAGE addressed to the target Participant and
including the message content" (claim 1 ).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Li
1. Li relates to mobile communication technology involving PoC
(Push-to-Talk Over Cellular) ("Technical field"), wherein an expulsion
request receiving means is provided for receiving from a PoC client a
request to expel a user, the request including the PoC address of the user to
be expelled ("SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION").
2. Li's Figure 3 is reproduced below:
3. ~ 5 Nt~~h,_,_,_.~
..................................................... ~ ................ J
I
3
Appeal2015-005558
Application 12/996,797
Li's Figure 3 shows a schematic diagram of the SIP message
interaction. As shown in the Figure, steps 311-314 indicate the expulsion of
PoC User B, wherein in steps 311-312, a "Bye" message is sent to PoC User
B ("Embodiment").
IV. ANALYSIS
As to claim 1, Appellants contend "Li is not concerned with sending
message content from a client node to fewer than all of the participants in an
ongoing Push to Talk over Cellular (PoC) Group Session" (App. Br. 7).
Instead, according to Appellants, "Li encodes 'method=BYE"' wherein "[i]t
is well known that the SIP MESSAGE method and the SIP BYE method are
entirely different types of methods" with "the MESSAGE method presently
being defined by RFC 3428" and "the BYE method presently being defined
by RFC 3261" (id.).
We consider all of Appellants' arguments and evidence presented, and
disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's rejections of
the claims.
As an initial matter of claim construction, we give the claim its
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See
Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2005). However,
"limitations are not to be read into the claims from the specification." In re
Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citations omitted).
Although Appellants contend the claimed "SIP MESSAGE method"
and Li's SIP BYE method are "entirely different types of methods" with
"the MESSAGE method presently being defined by RFC 3428" and "the
BYE method presently being defined by RFC 3261" (App. Br. 7), claim 1
4
Appeal2015-005558
Application 12/996,797
does not recite any method "defined by RFC 3428" or preclude any method
"defined by RFC 3428." That is, independent claim 1 merely requires
creating an SIP MESSAGE method, wherein the MESSAGE is "addressed
to the target Participant and including the message content." In fact, claim 1
does not even define "message content." The Specification does not provide
any clear definition to the terms.
We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's finding Li discloses
"sending BYE message information, which is a message content, from
POC client A to a single target client (Client B) in order to expel said
client" (Ans. 9; FF 1-2). That is, Li discloses a message ("BYE" message)
addressed to a target Participant (Client B) during an SIP interaction,
wherein the message includes message content, such as BYE information
(FF 1-2). In view of the broadest reasonable interpretation discussed above,
we agree with the Examiner's reliance on Li for disclosing "creating a
Session Initiation Protocol MESSAGE method, the MESSAGE addressed to
the target Participant and including the message content," as recited by claim
1.
On this record, we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 9, 12, and 1 7 falling therewith
(App. Br. 8), and claims 3---6, 10, 11, 14, and 15 depending respectively from
claims 1, 9, and 12, as being anticipated by Li.
As for claims 2 and 13, Appellants merely contend "Ranjan fails to
make up for the deficiencies of Li" (App. Br. 9). However, as discussed
above, we find no deficiencies with respect to Li. Accordingly, we find no
error with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Li and Ranjan
discloses and suggests the contested limitation (Ans. 7).
5
Appeal2015-005558
Application 12/996,797
Appellants similarly contend "Forslow fails to make up for the
deficiencies of Li" with respect to claims 7, 8, and 16 (App. Br. 10). We
also find no error with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Li and
Forslow discloses and suggests the contested limitation (Ans. 8).
V. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3---6, 9--12, 14, 15,
and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and of claims 2, 7, 8, 13, and 16 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
6