Ex Parte Bleckert et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 2, 201612922869 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 2, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/922,869 09/16/2010 Peter Bleckert 24112 7590 06/03/2016 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 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. 4015-7067 /P25842-US2 4488 EXAMINER HONG, DUNG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2643 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER BLECKERT, MATS NASLUND, MAGNUS OLSSON, and GORAN RUNE Appeal2014-004592 Application 12/922,869 1 Technology Center 2600 Before LARRY J. HUME, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, 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 17-32. Appellants have previously canceled claims 1-16. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Br. 2. Appeal2014-004592 Application 12/922,869 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention relates to methods and devices for improved warnings in a cellular communications system, in particular, to earthquake and tsunami cellular warning systems. Spec. 1, 56; Title. Exemplary Claim Claim 17, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added): 17. A method for implementing an Earthquake and Tsunami Warning System (ETWS) in a cellular communications system, the method comprising: transmitting a predefined ETWS message simultaneously to a plurality of user equipments (UEs) in one or more cells of the system; wherein the predefined ETWS message is transmitted on a physical channel in the cellular communications system, the physical channel being dedicated to messages to single UEs, and the predefined ETWS message comprises a combination of a primary warning notification and verification information related to the primary warning notification. 2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("Br.," filed Mar. 18, 2013); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed May 7, 2013); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Oct. 4, 2012); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed Sept. 16, 2010). We note Appellants did not file a Reply Brief in response to the factual findings and legal conclusions in the Examiner's Answer. 2 Appeal2014-004592 Application 12/922,869 Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Thorson et al. ("Thorson") US 2008/0194224 Al Aug. 14, 2008 Rezaiifar et al. ("Rezaiifar") US 2008/0227428 Al Sept. 18, 2008 Milbar US 2009/0128323 Al May 21, 2009 Rejections on Appeal RI. Claims 17-22, 24--27, and 29-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Thorson and Milbar. Final Act. 5. R2. Claims 23 and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Thorson, Mil bar, and Rezaiifar. Final Act. 11. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (Br. 5-12), we decide the appeal of obviousness Rejection RI of claims 17-22, 24--27, and 29-32 on the basis of representative claim 17. Remaining claims 23 and 28 in Rejection R2, not argued separately, stand or fall with the respective independent claim from which they depend. 3 3 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 3 Appeal2014-004592 Application 12/922,869 ISSUE Appellants argue (Br. 5-9) the Examiner's rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Thorson and Milbar is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests a method that includes, inter alia, transmitting a predefined ETWS message that comprises "a combination of a primary warning notification and verification information related to the primary warning notification," as recited in claim 17? ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments that Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 17, and we incorporate herein and 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 and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' arguments. We incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless otherwise noted. However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 17 for emphasis as follows. Appellants generally contend neither Thorson nor Milbar teaches or suggests the contested limitation of claim 17, i.e., "the predefined ETWS message comprises a combination of a primary warning notification and 4 Appeal2014-004592 Application 12/922,869 verification information related to the primary warning notification." Br. 5- 9. In particular, Appellants argue (App. Br. 7) the recited "verification information" does not read on Milbar's teaching (i-f 73) of a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), and further contend the Examiner's interpretation of the recited "verification information" is unreasonably broad and inconsistent with the Specification. Br. 7. Appellants cite to exemplary embodiments in their Specification in an attempt to demonstrate that the Examiner's interpretation is unreasonably broad: [T]he verification information may be a version number of the authentication key that is used to verify that a primary notification warning is authentic. Milbar's CRC bits, in contrast, are redundancy bits used for checking the integrity of the entire data frame. Milbar's CRC bits are not "related to the primary warning notification" within the meaning intended by the Applicant. ... ~v1ilbar's CRC bits differ from the recited verification information in purpose .... Milbar's CRC bits are used to verify "the integrity of the frame." In contrast, the verification information recited in the claimed invention is used to prevent unauthorized and intentional use of the ETWS system. Br. 7-8. " [A ]ppellant's arguments fail from the outset because ... they are not based on limitations appearing in the claims." In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). Appellants attempt to argue limitations not recited in the claims in an effort to show inconsistency of the Examiner's claim interpretation in light of the Specification. Br. 8. We disagree with Appellants' contentions. 5 Appeal2014-004592 Application 12/922,869 Moreover, "[i]n the patentability context, claims are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretations ... [and] 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). Any special meaning assigned to a term "must be sufficiently clear in the specification that any departure from common usage would be so understood by a person of experience in the field of the invention." Multiform Desiccants, Inc. v. Medzam, Ltd., 133 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1998); see also Helmsderfer v. Bobrick Washroom Equip., Inc., 527 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ("A patentee may act as its own lexicographer and assign to a term a unique definition that is different from its ordinary and customary meaning; however, a patentee must clearly express that intent in the written description."). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term, the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (citation omitted). We find Appellants have not cited to an explicit definition of "verification information" in the Specification that would preclude the Examiner's broader reading. Ans. 6-7. In particular, the Examiner finds "[t]he CRC bit is used to verify the integrity information of the frame which contains primary warning information, therefore, verification information. The CRC bit is a part of a frame - message - as indicated in Fig. 9 A in Milbar['s] teaching." Ans. 7. We agree with the Examiner's findings. We further note, "one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where ... the rejections are based on combinations of references." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Appellants 6 Appeal2014-004592 Application 12/922,869 argue "Thorson does not concern how to use emergency broadcast message securely and does not disclose how to prevent an emergency broadcast message from being transmitted by an unauthorized user" (Br. 6), and also argue Milbar does not disclose an ETWS warning message that comprises a primary warning notification and verification information related to the primary warning notification. Milbar relates to rendering an alert message on a digital radio broadcast receiver ... [and i]n Milbar's alert message, different fields are used to indicate the location of the threat, the category of the alert, the type of the alert message, etc. Milbar's alert message also includes a 7-bit cyclic redundancy check (CRC) field that is used to verify the integrity of the frame. Br. 6-7. We disagree with Appellants. We disagree because, as the Examiner finds, Milbar discloses a system broadcasting alert such as earthquake ([i-f 87] discloses multiple type of alert for event such as earthquake, it \~1ould be obvious to for an ordinaf'J skill in the art to use the same system to alert other event such as tsunami) and a message comprise a combination of primary warning notification and verification information related to the primary warning notification. Final Act. 6. Appellants further argue the Examiner provided improper motivation to combine Thorson and Milbar in the manner suggested because: [A] person skilled in the art would not have combined Thorson with Milbar in order to arrive at the claimed invention. Neither reference concerns the security of an ETWS warning system. Neither reference teaches or suggests how to prevent unauthorized use of an ETWS warning system. The use of CRC bits as taught by Milbar provides a means for checking whether a data frame has been corrupted due to interference or noise. 7 Appeal2014-004592 Application 12/922,869 Br. 9. The use of CRC bits does not prevent unauthorized or malicious use of an ETWS warning system. A person skilled in the art would not have combined Thorson with Milbar in order to find a solution to improve the security of an ETWS system. The Examiner responds to Appellants' allegations, and we agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner's factual findings and legal conclusions in this regard. Ans. 8. Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 17, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 17, and grouped claims 18-22, 24--27, and 29-32 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. § 103(a) Rejection R2 of Claims 23 and 28 In view of the lack of any substantive or separate arguments directed to the obviousness rejection of claims 23 and 28 under § 103 (see Br. 11- 12), we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. We deem arguments not made waived. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err with respect to obviousness Rejections RI and R2 of claims 17-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the cited prior art combinations of record, and we sustain the rejections. 8 Appeal2014-004592 Application 12/922,869 DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 17-32. 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) (2011). AFFIRMED 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation