Ex Parte Kim

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 11, 2014

11801564 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 11, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/801,564 05/10/2007 Ki-Soo Kim 1235-378 3570
66547 7590 04/14/2014
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
EDOUARD, PATRICK NESTOR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2014 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 KI-SOO KIM
____________

Appeal 2012-000413
Application 11/801,564
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, JEAN R. HOMERE, and
CAROLYN D. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000413
Application 11/801,564

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
finally rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 15. Claims 4, 6-8, and 17 are
objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim (see Ans. 9).
Claims 11-14 and 16 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The present invention relates generally to acquiring synchronization in
a mobile communication system in which a plurality of mobile terminals can
be synchronized when the plurality of mobile terminals execute the same
event at the same time. Spec. 1:16-19.
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for simultaneously executing an event in a
plurality of mobile terminals, comprising:
transmitting a signal to at least one mobile terminal and
checking a transmission time point of the signal;
when a response signal for the signal is received from the
at least one mobile terminal, checking a reception time point of the
response signal;
calculating a signal delay time using the transmission
time point of the signal, the reception time point of the response
signal, and an offset time contained in the response signal; and
transmitting an event execution signal for the event to the
at least one mobile terminal and executing the event, considering the
offset time and the signal delay time, for simultaneous execution of
the event with the at least one mobile terminal.

Appeal 2012-000413
Application 11/801,564

3
Appellants appeal the following rejections:

R1. Claims 1, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Robie, Jr. (US Patent Pub. 2003/0048811 A1, Mar.
13, 2003), Cho (US Patent Pub. 2002/0197993 A1, Dec. 26, 2002) and
Terasawa (US 7,492,754 B2, Feb. 17, 2009);
R2. Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Robie, Cho, Terasawa, and Turetzky (US Patent Pub.
2002/0173322 A1, Nov. 21, 2002); and
R3. Claims 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Robie, Cho, Teresawa, and Niemi (US Patent Pub.
2002/0035682 A1, Mar. 21, 2002).

Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 1, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5, 9, 10, and 15
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the combined teachings of
Robie, Cho, and Terasawa teaches and/or suggests transmitting an event
execution signal for the event to the at least one mobile terminal and
executing the event, considering the offset time and the signal delay time,
for simultaneous execution of the event with the at least one mobile
terminal?

Appeal 2012-000413
Application 11/801,564

4
Appellant contends that “the present invention recites simultaneous
execution at a terminal that receives an execution signal and a terminal that
sends the execution signal” (App. Br. 6). Appellant also contends that “Cho
fails to disclose executing the event considering the signal delay time for
simultaneous execution of the event with the at least one mobile terminal . . .
” (id.).
The Examiner found that “simultaneous execution at a terminal that
receives an execution signal and a terminal that sends the execution signal
[] are not recited in the rejected claim(s)” (Ans. 10). We agree with the
Examiner.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
As noted by the Examiner (see Ans. 10), the claims do not specifically
limit the invention to any apparatus/structure that performs the sending of
the execution signal, nor do the claims specify what particular terminals
perform the simultaneous execution of the event, only that one of them is a
mobile terminal receiving the execution signal. As a result, the claims read
on simultaneous execution among any apparatus/structure that has the
execution signal.
Here, the Examiner found, and we agree, that Robie discloses
checking a transmission time and a reception time (see (¶ [0099]).
Cho discloses in paragraphs [0112]-[0113] that the server distributes content
and timing control information (i.e., event execution signal) that indicates
when to display the content, to at least one mobile terminal. Furthermore, in
Cho, the execution of the event, i.e., displaying of the content, considers a
Appeal 2012-000413
Application 11/801,564

5
signal delay time (see ¶ [0113]). Similarly, Terasawa discloses that a timing
offset measurement report is sent from the mobile to the network (see col. 2,
ll. 29-30). As a result, the Examiner found, and we agree, that the
combination of Robie, Cho, and Terasawa would allow for the delay time
and the offset time to be considered when simultaneously executing an event
(see Ans. 12).
In view of the above discussion, because Appellant has not
demonstrated that the Examiner erred in finding the argued limitations in the
combined disclosure of Robie, Cho, and Terasawa, the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, and 15 not separately argued by Appellant, is sustained.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejections.
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