11741073 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2014)

Ex Parte Krig

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 22, 2014

11741073 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 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. 11/741,073 04/27/2007 Scott Krig 14528.00320 2298 16378 7590 07/22/2014 BGL/Broadcom P.O. Box 10395 Chicago, IL 60610 EXAMINER STIGLIC, RYAN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2111 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/22/2014 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 SCOTT KRIG ____________ Appeal 2011-009958 Application 11/741,073 Technology Center 2100 ____________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. In reaching the decision, we have considered only the arguments Appellant actually raised. Arguments Appellant did not make are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2010). Appeal 2011-009958 Application 11/741,073 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to multimedia communication. See generally Spec., 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for communicating multimedia information, the method comprising: specifying within one or more extensions of a media transfer protocol (MTP), a preferred string format for string transfers to and/or from a device that communicates via said MTP. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Manders (US 2006/0031545 A1; Feb. 9, 2006), Rosenbloom (US 2004/0221044 A1; Nov. 4, 2004), Media Transfer Protocol Enhanced, Revision 0.83, Microsoft Corporation, (2004), (“MTP Specification”), and Sadovsky (US 2006/0288036; Dec. 21, 2006). ISSUES Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding Manders, Rosenbloom, MTP Specification, and Sadovsky collectively teaches “specifying . . . a preferred string format for string transfers to and/or from a device,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. Appellant argues Appeal 2011-009958 Application 11/741,073 3 although Sadovsky may communicate based on MTP specifications, Sadovsky fails to disclose or suggest “specifying within ... extensions of the media transfer protocol (MTP), a preferred string format” that could be utilized for transferring information between the responder and initiator as claimed by Appellant. Likewise, Sadovsky fails to disclose MTP extension parameters and MTP extension operations that enable ‘specifying within ... extensions of the MTP, a preferred string format,’ as disclosed in Appellant’s specification. App. Br. 10. Appellant asserts in Sadovsky, “this passage [0035] relates to optimizing an index database for a responder device; it is not at all concerned with the format that is used for string transfers. In fact, neither in this passage nor elsewhere does Sandovsky even mention string transfers, let alone ‘specifying . . . a preferred string format for string transfers to and/or from a device . . . .’” See Reply Br. 4-5; see also App. Br. 7-13. Appellant contends the Examiner fails to provide articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion, and there is no motivation to combine the references. See App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3. We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive and therefore, disagree with Appellant’s arguments (App. Br. 4-23; Reply Br. 2-6), and agree with and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions on pages 4-6 and 12-14 of the Answer as our own. Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following points for emphasis. Appellant fails to provide evidence to persuade us of error. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that the cited references teach “within one or more extensions of a media transfer protocol (MTP), . . . that communicates via said MTP.” See Ans. 4-6 (citing Manders, Rosenbloom, Appeal 2011-009958 Application 11/741,073 4 and MTP Specification). Appellant also does not dispute the Examiner’s finding that “Sadovsky discloses a system similar to Manders” and like Manders, Sadovsky “utilizes the Media Transfer Protocol (MTP).” Ans. 5. In fact, Appellant concedes “Sadovsky may communicate based on MTP specifications . . . .” App. Br. 10. In light of the broad claim limitations, the Examiner reasonably interprets the disputed limitations to encompass and thereby be taught by Sadovsky’s disclosures. The Examiner correctly finds Sadovsky teaches “the initiator device 202 may . . . dynamically obtain[] the device parameters 208 from the responder device 206” (mapped to the recited “for [ ] transfers to and/or from a device”), and “the device parameters may include the responder device’s 206 preference for particular record formats [for objects]” (mapped to the recited “specifying . . . preferred”). See Ans. 5; Sadovsky ¶¶ 0036, 0035. Because Sadovsky teaches object properties may include artist metadata, the Examiner reasonably finds the artist metedata may be a string variable record format (mapped to the recited “a . . . string format”), since an artist’s name may include alphabetic characters. Therefore, the Examiner correctly finds Sadovsky teaches “specifying . . . a preferred string format for string transfers to and/or from a device.” As a result, the Examiner correctly finds Manders (including Rosenbloom and the MTP Specification) and Sadovsky collectively teaches “specifying within one or more extensions of a media transfer protocol (MTP), a preferred string format for string transfers to and/or from a device that communicates via said MTP,” because adding Sadovsky’s teaching of specifying a preferred string format technique to the Manders’s method achieves optimization. See Ans. 6, 12. Combining Manders’s method with Appeal 2011-009958 Application 11/741,073 5 Sadovsky’s technique of specifying a preferred string format for string transfers to and/or from a device would have predictably used prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The combination “only unites old elements with no change in their respective functions” and thus is unpatentable. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416-17. Further, “[i]n determining whether the subject matter of a patent claim is obvious, neither the particular motivation nor the avowed purpose of the patentee controls.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 419 (2007). In any event, we find the Examiner has articulated a motivation to combine because the combination achieves optimization and therefore, is more efficient (An. 5-6). See Dystar Textilfarben GmBH & Co. Dutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (“[A]n implicit motivation to combine exists . . . when the ‘improvement’ is technology-independent and the combination of references results in a product or process that is more desirable . . . because it is . . . more efficient.”). As a result, the Examiner’s combining the teachings of Manders (including Rosenbloom and the MTP Specification) and Sadovsky is supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. See Ans. Ans. 6, 12. Finally, because the Examiner relies on the combination of Manders (including Rosenbloom and the MTP Specification) and Sadovsky to teach the recited limitation, Appellant cannot establish nonobviousness by attacking the reference Sadovsky individually. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appeal 2011-009958 Application 11/741,073 6 Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claim 17 for the same or similar reasons. For similar reasons, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of corresponding dependent claims. Although Appellant addresses some dependent claims separately (App. Br. 13-23), all of the arguments are based on and/or repeat the alleged deficiencies with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 17, which we found unpersuasive as stated above. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-32 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 kme