Ex Parte Bhaskaran

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2012

11353416 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte HAMSINI BHASKARAN
____________________

Appeal 2010-003215
Application 11/353,416
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and JASON V. MORGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003215
Application 11/353,416

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18. Claims 4 and 13 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
Appellant’s Disclosed Invention
Appellant’s disclosed invention pertains to push-to-talk (PTT)
communications, i.e., the “walkie-talkie” feature that allows a wireless
handset user to communicate with a predefined group of members (Spec. ¶¶
[0002] and [0004]; Abs.). More specifically, after a call request message is
sent, a server provides an early notification to a target group of devices or
handsets when paging a wireless device during PTT communication (Abs.).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal, with emphases added,
reads as follows:

1. A method for reducing queuing time for an activity
announcement message during a push-to-talk (PTT) communication in a
wireless communication network, comprising the steps of:

receiving at a server a first message from an origination device, the
first message is a call request message;

identifying at least one targeted device for the PTT communication;

transmitting a second message, after receiving the first message from
the server to the at least one targeted device to determine if the at least one
targeted device is online, the second message having a header with an empty
message body and being transmitted before the activity announcement
message is sent by the server to the at least one target device; and

Appeal 2010-003215
Application 11/353,416

3
transmitting the activity announcement message from the server to the
at least one target device.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 14-16 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Jenkins (US 2005/0164682 A1).
1

Ans. 4-9.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 2, 7, 8, 11, and 17 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jenkins and Denman (US
7,170,863 B1). Ans. 10-13.
(3) The Examiner rejected dependent claims 3, 9, and 12 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jenkins, Denman, and Minert
(US 2002/0141386 A1). Ans. 13-16.
(4) The Examiner rejected dependent claim 18 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Jenkins and Minert. Ans. 16-17.
Appellant’s Contentions
(1) Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting (a) claims
1, 5, 6, 10, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), and (b) claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11,
12, 17, and 18 under § 103(a) for numerous reasons, including:
(a) Jenkins’ alert message (i.e., the second message of claim 1)
occurs after the user has made initial PTT communications (App. Br.
8);
(b) the call request message, second message, and activity
announcement message recited in claim 1 occur before the caller has
been granted the floor, while Jenkins is addressing problem occurring
after the caller has made the initial communication since Jenkins’ alert

1
Separate patentability is not argued for claims 5, 6, 10, 14, and 15.
Appeal 2010-003215
Application 11/353,416

4
message is an empty message which occurs after the initial voice
communication (App. Br. 8-9);
(c) Jenkins’ stored voice message is not equivalent to the
activity announcement message recited in claim 1 because the claimed
message occurs before the call is described in paragraphs [0022] and
[0025] of the Specification (App. Br. 10-11); and
(d) Jenkins does not describe that the server allocates resources
for the PTT communication after transmitting an announce message to
a target wireless device, as recited in claim 16 (App. Br. 12-13; Reply
Br. 2).
(2) Appellant also contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 under § 103(a) because Denman fails to
cure the deficiencies of Jenkins, i.e., Jenkins does not teach or suggest the
server functions recited in independent claim 7 including allocating
resources, and for the same reasons argued with respect to claims 1, 10, and
16 from which claims 2, 3, 8, 9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 respectively depend
(App. Br. 13-14).
Principal Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting (i) claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 14-16 as
being anticipated, and (ii) claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 as being
obvious, because Jenkins fails to teach “the first message is a call request
message” and “the second message having a header with an empty message
body and being transmitted before the activity announcement message is
sent by the server,” as set forth in representative claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 10 and 16?

Appeal 2010-003215
Application 11/353,416

5
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 6-14) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 1-
2) that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3-21) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief.
We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner, and highlight and
emphasize certain arguments and findings with regard to Jenkins as follows.
In the flow diagram of Figures 9 and 10, Jenkins discloses receiving a
call request from a user to initiate a PTT call (i.e., the “first message” recited
in claim 1) in step 322, and sending an alert message (i.e., the “second
message” recited in claim 1) in step 330 shown in Figure 9 before the final
step 346 in which a communication is sent to a caller (see ¶¶ [0028] and
[0029]) (i.e., before an activity announcement message or voice message is
transmitted from the server in step 346). Jenkins discloses that the incoming
call alert message (i.e., second message) sent to the first subscriber (i.e.,
target device) “does not carry the voice message input by Bob N. It provides
a command to the mobile terminal to generate an alert . . . .” ¶ [0028].
Thus, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 5 and 19) that Jenkins describes a
second message or alert message with a header (i.e., command) and an
empty body (i.e., no voice message). Notably, Appellant admits that Jenkins
discloses an empty message (App. Br. 9), does not dispute that Jenkins
discloses a header, and only contends that Jenkins’ method fails to meet the
Appeal 2010-003215
Application 11/353,416

6
timing requirements (e.g., sending the first and second messages prior to
initial PTT voice communications) set forth in claims 1 and 16 on appeal.
Therefore, Jenkins teaches or suggests “the first message is a call
request message” and “the second message having a header with an empty
message body and being transmitted before the activity announcement
message is sent by the server,” as set forth in representative claim 1, and
similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 16.
In Jenkins, the process of Figures 9 and 10 is performed by a
communication application server (¶ [0028] first sentence, “FIGS. 9 and 10
illustrate a flow diagram of Flex-Accept processing implemented by the
communication application server . . . ”). More specifically, “[t]he call
control server 84 in step 330 generates and transmits an incoming call alert
message to the mobile terminal of the first subscriber” John S., who is
operating the target device (¶ [0028]), which is equivalent to the “second
message” recited in claim 1.
Additionally, “[i]n step 326 the call control server 84 establishes a call
path to the real-time media server 86 and causes the latter to allocate storage
(memory) for holding the voice message from Bob N. associated with the
new call request” (¶ [0028] (italicized emphasis added)). Jenkins discloses
that “a normal voice call path is set up by the call control server 84 between
the calling and called parties at step 340” (¶ [0029]), which is equivalent to
allocating resources after a testing message has been transmitted as recited in
claims 7 and 16. Both Jenkins (¶¶ [0028] and [0029]; see also Title and
Abs.) and Denman (col. 18, ll. 26-44; see also Title and Abs.) teach or
suggest allocation of resources in a push-to-talk (PTT) environment.
Accordingly, Appellant’s contentions (1)(d) and (2), that Jenkins fails to
Appeal 2010-003215
Application 11/353,416

7
disclose a server for allocating resources for PTT communications, are
unpersuasive.
Appellant’s contentions (1)(a) and (1)(b) with respect to Jenkins’
sending the alert message and addressing problems occurring after a caller
has made the initial communication and has been granted the floor (App. Br.
8-9) are not commensurate in scope with the recitations found in claim 1.
Claim 1 does not require the floor be granted, or that certain actions take
place either before or after the floor is granted to a caller. Claim 1 merely
recites a method for reducing queuing time for an activity announcement
message during a PTT communication, including transmission of the activity
announcement message from a server to a target device in a wireless
communication network. There is no mention in any of the claims on appeal
of an initial communication, or a floor being granted to begin a
communication.
Appellant’s contention (1)(c) that Jenkins’ stored voice message is not
equivalent to the activity announcement message recited in claim 1 is not
persuasive in light of our interpretation of the claim terms “first message,”
“second message,” and “activity announcement message” (see claim 1) in
light of Appellant’s Specification (see ¶¶ [0022]-[0030]). Notably, the
Specification describes a “call message” or “call request message” (¶¶
[0022], [0024], [0027], and [0030]), either of which are encompassed by the
recitation in claim 1 of a “first message” that is received at a server and sent
from an origination device (see Fig. 4). Also, the Specification describes a
“page message” (¶ [0022]), a “page response” (¶ [0025]), a “paging signal”
(¶¶ [0028] and [0031]), and “subsequent audio communications” (¶ [0022]),
an “announce message” (¶¶ [0022], [0024],[0025], and [0028]), a “page
Appeal 2010-003215
Application 11/353,416

8
message” (¶ [0022]), a “paging signal” (¶¶ [0028] and [0031]), and a “PING
message” (¶¶ [0027] and [0030]), any of which are encompassed by the
recitation in claim 1 of a “second message” that is transmitted from the
server to the target device (see Fig. 4). We agree with the Examiner that
Jenkins’ voice message transmitted from the server to the subscriber device
(Ans. 19 citing Jenkins, Fig. 10, steps 344-346 and ¶ [0029]) meets the
claimed limitation of an “activity announcement message” that is transmitted
from the server to the target device.
In view of the foregoing, Appellant’s arguments that Jenkins does not
teach “the first message is a call request message” and “the second message
having a header with an empty message body and being transmitted before
the activity announcement message is sent by the server,” as set forth in
representative claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 16
are not convincing. In light of the Examiner’s findings and reasoning, as set
forth in the Answer, Appellant’s remaining arguments regarding claims 2, 3,
7-9, 11, 12, 17, and 18 are no more persuasive than the arguments addressed
above with respect to claims 1, 10, and 16.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 5, 6, 10, and 14-16
as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 17,
and 18 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 are not patentable.

Appeal 2010-003215
Application 11/353,416

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14-18 are
affirmed.
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