Ex Parte Allen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 31, 201611670581 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111670,581 02/02/2007 90140 7590 09/02/2016 BlackBerry Limited (HFZ) 2200 University A venue East Waterloo, ON N2K OA 7 CANADA FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ANDREW ALLEN 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. 30819-US-PAT 7403 EXAMINER A YOTUNDE, AYODEJI 0 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2016 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): patdoctc@fr.com portfolioprosecution@blackberry.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ANDREW ALLEN and BOKINAKERE SUBBARAO SUND RESH Appeal2015-002981 Application 11/670,581 Technology Center 2600 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. EV ANS, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1, 5, 12 through 15, 20, 34, and 35. We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method for use on a push to talk system where a user of one device can send a push to talk media burst to another user device. See Abstract. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: Appeal2015-002981 Application 11/670,581 1. A user equipment (UE) operable pursuant to a Push to talk Over Cellular (PoC) communication scheme, said UE comprising: a client configured to receive, over a wireless access network, a push-to-talk media burst, the push-to- talk media burst being received in a multimedia message of a multimedia messaging service (MMS), the received multimedia message containing an identifier to identify the multimedia message as containing push-to- talk media burst data; a controller configured to: provide an indication at the UE that indicates that the received multimedia message contains push-to-talk media burst data; and provide a capability at the UE for causing deletion of a stored copy of the push-to-talk media burst, which is stored at a network element, using a control message of the MMS that is to be sent by the UE to the network element. REJECTION AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5, 15, 20, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung (US 2006/0121925 Al; published June 8, 2006) and Kim (US 2004/0111481 Al; published June 10, 2004). Final Act. 2--4.1 The Examiner has rejected claims 12 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung, Kim and OMA-AD PoC Box, XP- 002526393 oma (Open Mobile Alliance). Final Act. 4--6. 1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 25, 2014) ("Appeal Br."), Reply Brief, (filed Jan. 21, 2015) ("Reply Br."), the Final Office Action, mailed Feb. 26, 2014 ("Final Act."), and the Examiner's Answer (mailed Nov. 24, 2014) ("Ans."). 2 Appeal2015-002981 Application 11/670,581 The Examiner has rejected claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jung, Kim, and Trossen (US 2004/0151192 Al; published Aug. 5, 2004). Final Act. 6-7. ANALYSIS Appellants argue on pages 4 through 10 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 through 7 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 20 is in error. The dispositive issue presented by these arguments is did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Jung and Kim teach providing the capability, at a receiving user equipment, to delete a push to talk media burst stored at a network element as recited in each of independent claims 1, 15, and 20. In response to Appellants' arguments the Examiner states: Whether Kim reference is silent with respect to the MMS user agent on the receiving side or not is considered moot because under the (BRI) broadest reasonable interpretation, claim 15 simply claims "using a control message of the MMS that is to be sent by the UE to the network element". Answer 3. The Examiner's rejection relies upon the claim interpretation discussed above and finds that Kim's teaching of the sending user equipment providing the capability to delete the copy of the push to talk media burst stored at the network element meets the disputed limitation. We disagree with the Examiner's claim interpretation. Claim 1 recites "said UE [user equipment] comprising: a client configured to receive ... a controller configured to: provide a capability at the UE for causing deletion of a stored copy." Thus, the antecedent basis for "the UE" in the limitation directed to deleting the stored copy is the user equipment with the client to receive the 3 Appeal2015-002981 Application 11/670,581 media burst. Independent claims 15 and 20 recite similar limitations. As the Examiner has not shown that the prior art teaches that the receiving user equipment has the capability to delete a push to talk media burst stored at the network element, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 15, and 20 or dependent claims 5 and 35. The Examiner has not shown that the additional references used in the rejections of dependent claims 12 through 14 and 34 make up for the deficiency noted in the rejection of claims 1, 15, and 20. Accordingly, we similarly do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 12 through 14 and 34. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 5, 12 through 15, 20, 34, and 35 is reversed. REVERSED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation