Ex Parte Kim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 30, 201311949467 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2013) Copy Citation 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. 11/949,467 12/03/2007 Seon-Mi KIM 678-1575 DIV 4827 66547 7590 12/30/2013 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER BALAOING, ARIEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2699 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2013 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 SEON-MI KIM and HYUN-RY KIM ____________ Appeal 2012-004847 Application 11/949,467 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH F. DIXON, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-004847 Application 11/949,467 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to an apparatus and method for deleting a text message received by a mobile communication terminal (Spec. 1:17-18). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. An apparatus for deleting a text message received in a mobile communication terminal, the apparatus comprising: an information detecting unit for detecting deletion time information from a subparameter newly added to a bearer data parameter of a transport layer in a short message service data burst message structure of the received text message, wherein the deletion time information is generated when the text message is generated and transmitted by a calling side mobile communication terminal; a time checking unit for checking whether the deletion time arrives; and a deleting unit for deleting the received text message at the deletion time. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Olvera-Hernandez (US 2004/0048627 A1). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Olvera-Hernandez teaches all the limitations recited in Appellants’ claim 1 (Ans. 4-5). Appellants assert Olvera-Hernandez does not teach detecting deletion time information (App. Br. 5-8) and that “the deletion time information is Appeal 2012-004847 Application 11/949,467 3 generated when the text message is generated and transmitted” (App. Br. 9- 11). That is, Appellants assert the claimed “deleting time” is not the same as Olvera-Hernandez’s “validity period” (App. Br. 6). We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings as our own. Specifically, we agree the “validity period” in Olvera-Hernandez provides an “absolute date and/or time of the validity period 610 termination” (emphasis deleted) (Ans. 8-9), contrary to Appellants’ assertions (App. Br. 5-8; Reply Br. 2-3). Additionally, it is noted the term “deletion time” in Appellants’ Specification recites: The caller selects a time, at which a corresponding message must be deleted after being received in a counterpart mobile communication terminal, in the form of year/month/day/hour/minute/second. The selection may be set in various ways, such as several hours or several days after being received, according to a menu construction. Spec. 5:11-14. Under a broadest reasonable interpretation, as the claims do not recite two separate time limitations and the Specification broadly recites the “time” is in the form of a year/month/day/hour/minute/second, which are all time periods, we agree with the Examiner’s finding the claimed deletion time reads on Olvera-Hernandez’s validity period (Ans.5-8). As to the limitation “wherein the deletion time information is generated when the text message is generated,” Appellants’ arguments that Olvera-Hernandez does not teach or suggest the deletion time information is generated when the text message is generated (App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 3) are without merit. We agree with the Examiner Appeal 2012-004847 Application 11/949,467 4 Appellants’ reliance on the timing of the generation is not recited in the claims. Further, as the Examiner finds, the claims merely recite generation of information when a text message is generated without requiring specific timing with respect to the generation of the message (Ans. 11). Additionally, Figure 6 of Olvera-Hernandez shows the validity period is within an SMS message, and in order to be within the message it has to be generated when the text message is generated (Ans. 5, 10). Thus, the Examiner is not “picking and choosing” various disclosures (Ans. 11-12). In light of the broad language in claim 1 and the arguments presented, Appellants’ have failed to clearly show error in the Examiner’s findings. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claim 1, and claims 3, 4, and 6, argued therewith. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 4, and 6 is 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 kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation