Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 7, 2017

14587487 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 7, 2017)

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.
14/587,487 12/31/2014 Soeng-Hun KIM 678-1242 CON3 (P10923) 4613
66547 7590 08/09/2017
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
GHAFOERKHAN, FAIYAZKHAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/09/2017 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SOENG-HUN KIM, KOOK-HEUI LEE,
SUNG-HO CHOI, and II HAN
Appeal 2017-002809
Application 14/587,487
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection
of claims 1, 3—5, 7—9, 11—13, 15, and 16, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-002809
Application 14/587,487
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention “relates generally to a
control message transmitting/receiving method in a mobile communication
system, and in particular, to a method of transmitting/receiving a control
message between a radio network controller (RNC) and a user equipment
(UE) in a mobile communication system providing multimedia
broadcast/multicast service (MBMS).” Spec. 1:20-24.2
Exemplary Claim
1. A method of a base station in a wireless communication
system, the method comprising:
transmitting, to a terminal, a first message including first
information about a scheduling period and an offset;
transmitting, to the terminal, a second message including
second information about at least one multimedia
broadcast/multicast service (MBMS), based on the first
information about the scheduling period and the offset; and
transmitting, to the terminal, data of the at least one
MBMS,
wherein the second information includes at least one of a
temporary multicast group identity (TMGI) and an
identification of the at least one MBMS.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App.).
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed December 31, 2014; “Non-Final Act.” for the Non-Final
Office Action, mailed January 15, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief,
filed June 13, 2016; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed October 20,
2016; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed December 8, 2016.
2
Appeal 2017-002809
Application 14/587,487
The Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1, 3—5, 7—9, 11—13, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sarkkinen et al. (US 6,839,565 B2; Jan. 4,
2005) (“Sarkkinen”) and Hurtta (US 2005/0151840 Al; July 14, 2005).
Non-Final Act. 3—9.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejection of claims 1, 3—5, 7—9, 11—13, 15, and
16 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the
reasons explained below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding
error by the Examiner. We adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Non-Final
Office Action (Non-Final Act. 3—11) and the Answer (Ans. 2—3). We add
the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claim 1
“First Message Including First Information” and
“Second Message ... Based on the First Information”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 1 because Sarkkinen and Hurtta fail to:
teach or suggest transmitting, to a terminal, a first message
including first information about a scheduling period and an
offset; and transmitting, to the terminal, a second message
including second information about at least one multimedia
broadcast/multicast service (MBMS), based on the first
information about the scheduling period and the offset, as
recited in independent Claim 1.
App. Br. 6—10; Reply Br. 3^4.
Appellants point out that the Examiner maps the claimed “first
message” to a System Information Block (“SIB”) message in Sarkkinen and
the claimed “second message” to a Paging Indicator Channel (“PICH”)
3
Appeal 2017-002809
Application 14/587,487
frame in Sarkkinen. App. Br. 6—7; see Non-Final Act. 3. Appellants then
argue that (1) the Examiner “does not actually identify anything in Sarkkinen
that teaches that the PICH frame is transmitted based on the SIB” and
(2) “there is nothing in Sarkkinen that teaches or suggests that the PICH
frame is transmitted based on the SIB.'” App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 3.
Appellants acknowledge that an SIB message may include a System Frame
Number (“SFN”) as an offset. App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3; see Sarkkinen
7:11—16. But Appellants argue that the SFN offset relates to a Secondary
Common Control Physical Channel (“SCCPCH”) and “has no bearing on the
PICH frame transmission.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
the Examiner finds that Sarkkinen’s PICH frames as shown in Figures 5—7
taken alone correspond to the claimed “first message” and “second
message.” Ans. 3. More specifically, Sarkkinen explains that a PICH frame
may serve several purposes depending on the indication type included in the
PICH frame’s type field. Sarkkinen 2:58—61, 7:61—8:9, Abstract, Fig. 5; see
App. Br. 5 (paraphrasing Abstract). A portion of Sarkkinen Figure 5 is
reproduced below:
000 NEXT FELD IDENTIFIES CURRENTLY MULTICAST SERVICE
001 NEXT FIELD IDENTIFIES NEXT MULTICAST SERVICE
010 NEXT FIELD IDENTIFIES OFFSET VALUE
Oil NEXT FIELD WAS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PREVIOUS FFIAME
100 NEXT FRAME CONTAINS A SFN (OR AN OFFSET) FOR AN ANNOUNCEMENT FRAME
101 NEXT FRAME CONTAINS A SFN (OR AN OFFSET) FOR A MULTICAST ADVERTISING FRAME
111-' IQ RESERVED VALUES
Sarkkinen Fig. 5. This portion of Figure 5 depicts various values for a PICH
frame’s type field. See id. at 7:61—8:9. For instance, the value 001 in the
type field indicates that the next field identifies the next multicast service,
4
Appeal 2017-002809
Application 14/587,487
and the value 100 in the type field indicates that the next frame contains a
SFN or other offset for an announcement frame.
Sarkkinen discloses that a “list of multicast services” with service
identifications can be sent either in an SIB message or “inside a separate
multicast service announcement frame,” such as a PICH frame. Sarkkinen
6:30—33, 6:38—41, 7:17—20, 8:19—24, Fig. 3; see id. at 2:5—6. Further,
Figure 5 shows that a PICH frame may contain a SFN or other offset for an
announcement frame. See id. at 7:20—22, Fig. 5. A PICH frame with an
offset for an announcement frame corresponds to the claimed “first
message,” and the related announcement frame corresponds to the claimed
“second message.” The later announcement frame is based on the earlier
frame with the offset.
Appellants contend that the Examiner’s reliance on “a first PICH as a
first message and a second PICH as a second message” conflicts with an SIB
message “being an equivalent to the claimed first message.” Reply Br. 3.
Appellants do not, however, make any persuasive arguments refuting the
Examiner’s finding that Sarkkinen’s PICH frames as shown in Figures 5—7
taken alone correspond to the claimed “first message” and “second
message.” See Ans. 3; see also Reply Br. 1^4.
Appellants assert that “the offset value detected from the PICH frame
... is not related to timing transmission of the PICH frame, but is related to
timing to transmit the next multicast session.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3^4.
That assertion disregards Sarkkinen’s disclosure that one PICH frame may
contain a multicast service announcement and that another PICH frame may
contain an offset for an announcement frame. Sarkkinen 6:30—33, 6:38-41,
7:17—20, Fig. 3; see id. at 2:5—6. In addition, claim 1 does not require
5
Appeal 2017-002809
Application 14/587,487
identical frame types for the “first message” and the “second message.” So
even if a non-PICH frame contains a multicast service announcement,
Sarkkinen still teaches or suggests an announcement frame (the “second
message”) based on a PICH frame with an offset for the announcement
frame (the “first message”).
“First Message Including First Information
About a Scheduling Period and an Offset”
Appellants contend that Sarkkinen fails to teach or suggest a “first
message including first information about a scheduling period and an
offset.” App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 3. Appellants’ contention does not persuade
us of Examiner error. The Specification indicates that a scheduling period
corresponds to a transmission length. Spec. 25:20-26:16, Fig. 11; see App.
Br. 7. As found by the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 3—4), Sarkkinen generally
discloses timing and offset information, and particularly teaches that an
offset may constitute a time value, a Transmission Time Interval (“TTI”), a
frame number, or a predefined value. Sarkkinen 7:32—35, 8:13—15, 8:40-42.
A TTI offset denotes a transmission length as well as a transmission starting
point. Thus, Sarkkinen teaches or suggests a “first message including first
information about a scheduling period and an offset,” as recited in claim 1.
Summary for Independent Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Sarkkinen and Hurtta. Hence, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 3—5, 7—9, 11—13, 15, and 16
Appellants do not make any separate patentability arguments for
independent claims 5, 9, and 13 or dependent claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 15,
6
Appeal 2017-002809
Application 14/587,487
and 16. App. Br. 5—11; Reply Br. 1—5. Because Appellants do not argue the
claims separately, we sustain the rejection of claims 3—5, 7—9, 11—13, 15,
and 16 for the same reasons as claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 3—5, 7—9,
11—13, 15, and 16.
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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
7