Ex Parte Gindentuller et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 31, 201412192261 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ILYA GINDENTULLER, DAVID SCHICK, and KIT SONNY WONG ____________ Appeal 2012-001595 Application 12/192,2611 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and NINA L. MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judges. MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. 1 The real party in interest, identified by Appellants, is Motorola, Inc. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2012-001595 Application 12/192,261 2 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method comprising: receiving media data transfer protocol data at a device; splitting the media data transfer protocol data in the device into media data transfer protocol control data and a media data transfer protocol bulk data; transferring the media data transfer protocol control data over a first channel in the device to a media data transfer protocol data synchronization application in the device; and transferring the media data transfer protocol bulk data over a second channel in the device substantially directly to memory substantially simultaneously with transferring the media data transfer protocol control data over the first channel. The Examiner relies upon the following prior art: Sinclair US 2007/0033327 A1 Feb. 8, 2007 Dillaway US 2008/0101598 A1 May 1, 2008 Kesselman US 2009/0168650 A1 July 2, 2009 Appellants appeal the following rejections: 1. Claims 1, 9–11, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kesselman in view of Dillaway. 2. Claims 2–8, 12–18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kesselman in view of Dillaway and further in view of Sinclair. ISSUES Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because Dillaway fails to disclose or suggest transferring media data transfer protocol bulk data over a second channel in the device substantially directly to memory? Appeal 2012-001595 Application 12/192,261 3 Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 9 and 19 because the words “media data transfer data transfer protocol” cannot be found in either of the cited references? ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1, 9–11, and 19 The Appellants argue in regard to claim 1 that Dillaway fails to disclose transferring media data transfer protocol bulk data over a second channel in the device substantially directly to memory. We agree. In the Examiner’s rejection, the Examiner states that Kesselman does not disclose transferring media data transfer protocol bulk data over a second channel in the device substantially directly to memory and as such the Examiner relies on Dillaway for teaching this subject matter (Ans. 6). We find that Dillaway discloses that data is transferred from a responder/transmitter 104 to a requester/receiver 102 through a network 106 (Dillaway ¶ 21). Each requester/receiver 102 and responder/transmitter 104 may be realized with one or more devices. Each requester/receiver 102 includes a requesting application 108(req) and each responder/transmitter 104 has a responder application 108(resp) (id. ¶¶ 26, 34). We agree with the Appellants that in Dillaway, the data is transferred between requester/receiver devices and responder/transmitter devices through network 106 and not over a second channel in the device substantially directly to memory as required by claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 Independent claims 9 and 19 do not include the limitation of transferring media data transfer protocol bulk data over a second channel in Appeal 2012-001595 Application 12/192,261 4 the device substantially directly to memory. Nor do these claims recite that the media is split in the device and that the control data is transferred in the device. Rather, claims 9 and 19 recite an apparatus that includes a control module that transfers control data over a first channel to a data synchronization application and over a second channel to memory. Claims 9 and 19 are, thus, broad enough to include an apparatus that includes several devices and transfers data between these devices. As such, Appellants’ argument that the cited prior art does not disclose transfer of data in the device is not persuasive as to these claims. We are also not persuaded of error on the part of the Examiner by Appellants’ argument that neither Kesselman nor Dillaway discloses a media data transfer protocol data synchronization application because the words “media data transfer data transfer protocol” cannot be found in either reference. The Examiner found on page 6 that the Dillaway disclosure of a requesting and responding application met this limitation and on page 7 that the Kesselman disclosure related to WPAN and WLAN radio modules found at paragraph 11 of Kesselman also met this limitation. The Appellants have not discussed any of these findings made by the Examiner. Specifically, the Appellants have not explained why the relied on portions of Dillaway and Kesselman do not disclose the media data transfer protocol data synchronization application as claimed. We note that merely repeating the language of the claim does not constitute a separate argument for patentability. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that the Board reasonably interpreted 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2007) as requiring “more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a Appeal 2012-001595 Application 12/192,261 5 mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). In view of the foregoing, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 19. We will also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 10 and 11 because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability of these claims. Rejection of claims 2–8, 12–18, and 20 We will not sustain the rejection of claims 2–8 because these claims depend from claim 1 and, thus, require that the transfer of data take place in the device and Sinclair does not cure the deficiencies noted above for the combination of Kesselman and Dillaway. We will sustain the rejection of claims 12–18 and 20 because these claims depend from claims 9 and 19 and the Appellants have not addressed the separate patentability of these claims. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–8. We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–20. 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) (2011). AFFIRMED-IN-PART Klh Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation