Ex Parte Meskauskas

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2013

10854532 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2013)

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.
10/854,532 05/26/2004 Paulius Meskauskas 800.0883.U1 (US) 7171
10948 7590 03/27/2013
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
GILLIS, BRIAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2013 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 PAULIUS MESKAUSKAS
____________

Appeal 2010-010370
Application 10/854,5321
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, STANLEY M. WEINBERG, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

EVANS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) involving claims to
methods for application message decompression. The Examiner has rejected
the claims as obvious and as directed to non-statutory subject matter. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Apr. 1, 2010), the Answer (mailed May 6,
2010), and the Reply Brief (filed July 6, 2010).

1 The real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
Appeal 2010-010370
Application 10/854,532

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellant’s invention, a transport layer stream with
application messages, including application messages compressed according
to a signaling compression method, is received and transferred to an
application client, which transfers unidentified application messages to a
decompression entity configured to identify and decompress application
messages compressed according to the signaling compression method. The
application messages compressed according to the signaling compression
method are decompressed and transferred back to the application client.
(Abstract).
Claims 1-15 are on appeal. Claims 1, 7, and 11-15 are independent.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below:
1. A method of decompressing application messages,
comprising:
receiving transport layer data packet stream including
application messages, at least one of the application messages
being compressed according to a signalling compression
method;
transferring the received transport layer data packet
stream to at least one application client;
identifying uncompressed application messages directed
to said at least one application client;
transferring unidentified application messages to a
decompression entity configured to identify and decompress
application messages compressed according to said signalling
compression method;
decompressing said at least one application message
compressed according to said signalling compression method;
and
Appeal 2010-010370
Application 10/854,532

3
transferring the decompressed application messages back
to said at least one application client.

The claims are rejected as follows:
1. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed
invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claimed
system comprising endpoints is purportedly software per se as
described in paragraphs 27 and 53-55 of the Specification. (Ans. 4
(citing MPEP § 2106)).
2. Claims 1-5, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Price (R. Price et al., Signaling Compression (SigComp)
(Jan. 2003)), Garakani (US 2005/0015514 A1, filed May 30, 2003),
and Svanbro (US 2002/0057716 A1, filed Mar. 21, 2001). (Ans.
4-10).
3. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Price,
Garakani, Svanbro, and Symbian (Symbian Developer Library,
Subsystems and APIs (2002)). (Ans. 11-12).
4. Claims 7, 9, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Price and Pusl (CN 1361997, Jul. 31, 2002). (Ans.
12-16).
5. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Price,
Pusl, and Gadepalli (US 2003/0191860 A1, filed Apr. 5, 2002).
(Ans. 16).
6. Claim 11 is also rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Price, Pusl, Garakani, and Svanbro. (Ans. 16-20).

Appeal 2010-010370
Application 10/854,532

4
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

THE NON-STATUTORY SUBJECT MATTER REJECTION
CONTENTIONS AND ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. (Ans. 4).
The Examiner finds that the claimed system comprising of endpoints is
software per se as described in paragraphs 27 and 53-55 of the Specification.
(Id.).
Appellant contends that the claimed endpoints are user equipment and
are thus, items of manufacture. (App. Br. 11 (citing Spec. ¶ 0027)).
The issue with respect to this rejection is whether the claimed
“endpoints” are pure software, or comprise articles of manufacture.
ANALYSIS
The Specification discloses that: “the endpoints of the message
transfer (e.g. user equipments UE of a mobile network) typically comprise
all necessary elements for both compression and decompression of the
SigComp messages.” (Spec. ¶ 0027). The endpoints are thus defined as “user
equipment,” i.e., articles of manufacture. Therefore, Appellant is persuasive
that the claims do not recite pure software.

Appeal 2010-010370
Application 10/854,532

5
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
CLAIMS 1-5, 12, AND 14
Contentions and Issue
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-5, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as obvious over Price, Garakani, and Svanbro. (Ans. 4-10).
Appellant contends that Price describes traditional SigComp
architecture, including the use of a compressor dispatcher and a
decompressor dispatcher. (App. Br. 12). Appellant contends that the claimed
invention eliminates the need for these components of Price’s architecture.
(Id.). Appellant contends that Svanbro does not disclose an application client
and that Svanbro fails to teach or suggest application layer or transport layer
activity. (Id.).

Appellant contends that the claims recite that the transport layer data
packet stream is transferred to at least one application client where the
transport layer data packet stream is split by transferring unidentified (e.g.,
compressed) application messages to a decompression entity according to a
signaling compression method. (Reply Br. 3-4). The Examiner finds that
packet stream splitting is by the combination of Price (Figure 1) teaching
receiving transport layer data and transferring data to an application client,
Svanbro (¶¶0036 and 0037) teaching the feature of transporting the data
stream received to a terminal or application client, and Garakani (Figure 3
and ¶ 0029) teaching the feature of identifying uncompressed data directed
towards the application client. (Ans. 21).

Appeal 2010-010370
Application 10/854,532

6
The issue is whether the cited art discloses transferring a transport
layer packet stream having compressed application messages to an
application client.
Analysis
Claim 1 recites “receiving transport layer data packet stream including
application messages, at least one of the application messages being
compressed.” Claim 1 further recites “transferring the received transport
layer data packet stream to at least one application client.” Claim 14 recites
“software code for transferring the received transport layer data packet
stream to at least one application client.” Claim 12 recites “transferring the
received transport layer data packet stream to at least one application client.”
Appellant contends that the claims require that a transport layer packet
stream, comprising compressed application messages, is transferred to an
application client. (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 3-4).
The Examiner finds that Price teaches receiving transport layer data
and transferring data to an application client (Ans. 21 (citing Price p. 6; Fig.
1)). However, Price Figure 1 shows the transport layer packet stream being
received by a decompressor dispatcher, following which, decompressed data
is transferred to a local application. We do not agree that Price teaches
transferring a transport layer packet stream, comprising compressed
application messages, to an application client. We find that Svanbro and
Garakani are silent as to an application client. Therefore, we decline to
sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 12, and 14.
CLAIM 6
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Price,
Garakani, Svanbro, and Symbian. (Ans. 11-12). Claim 6 depends from claim
Appeal 2010-010370
Application 10/854,532

7
1. The Examiner does not find that Symbian teaches the disputed limitation
discussed above. We, therefore, do not sustain the rejection of claim 6.
CLAIMS 7, 9, 10, 13, AND 15
Claims 7, 9, 10, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Price and Pusl. (Ans. 12-16). The Examiner finds that Price
teaches transferring an application message from a client to a compressor,
and Pusl (p. 3, ll. 27-33) teaches compressing the message and transferring it
back to the application client. (Ans. 23).
Appellant contends that independent claims 7, 13, and 15 recite
“transferring from at least one application client at least one application
message to a compression entity between an application layer and a transport
layer.” (App. Br. 15-16). Appellant argues that neither Price nor Pusl teaches
transferring an application message from a client to a compressor, as found
by the Examiner (Ans. 21). Rather, Price teaches that “[a] compressor
receives an application message from the compressor dispatcher.” (App. Br.
16 (emphasis omitted)). We agree.
Appellant traverses the Examiner’s finding that “it would have been
obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to use the transferring back to
the client feature in Pusl et al with the system in Price et al because
maximum flexibility is provided to the terminal.” (Ans. 13). Appellant
contends that where Price teaches that the compression or decompression is
carried out in the terminal, it is not obvious to modify Price with a reference,
such as Pusl, that teaches the compression or decompression is not carried
out by the terminal itself. (App. Br. 17). We agree. Pusl teaches that the
compression/decompression functions are not performed on the terminal, but
on a separate, remote module.
Appeal 2010-010370
Application 10/854,532

8
We find Appellant persuasive that the cited art does not disclose
transferring a message from a client to a compressor as claimed.
CLAIM 8
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Price,
Pusl, and Gadepalli. (Ans. 16). Claim 8 depends from claim 7. We agree
with Appellant (App. Br. 17) that Gadepalli does not address the deficiencies
of Price and Pusl, as discussed above.
CLAIM 11
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Price,
Pusl, Garakani, and Svanbro. (Ans. 16-20). The Examiner finds that Price
teaches transferring application messages from an application client to a
compressor. (Ans. 18). Appellant re-alleges his argument that Price does not
teach transmitting messages from an application to a compressor, but rather
Price teaches transmitting messages from an application to a compressor
dispatcher. We agree with Appellant for the reasons discussed above.

SUMMARY
We reverse the rejection of claims 1-15.

REVERSED

babc