Ex Parte OH et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 10, 2016

11758896 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111758,896 0610612007
23373 7590 05/12/2016
SUGHRUE MION, PLLC
2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20037
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Seung-jae OH
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
Q97382 5297
EXAMINER
ASHRAF, WASEEM
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/12/2016 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):
PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM
sughrue@sughrue.com
USPTO@sughrue.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEUNG-JAE OH, SE-HEE HAN, WON-SEOK KWON, JOO-
YEOL LEE, and DONG-SHIN JUNG
Appeal2014-004639 1
Application 11/758,896
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and GARTH D. BAER,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 23, 25 and 26, which
are all the pending claims. See App. Br. 18. Oral arguments were heard on
May 5, 2016. A transcript of the hearing will be placed in the record in due
course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004639
Application 11/758,896
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to "synchronizing content directory
service (CDS) objects of a universal plug and play (UPnP) media servers."
Abstract. Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with
emphasis added to the disputed elements:
1. A method of synchronizing, in a universal plug and play
(UPnP) network, a first content directory service (CDS) of a first
device with a second CDS of a second device, the first device
pre-storing a plurality of relationship identifiers (IDs) and
pre-storing, corresponding to each relationship ID,
synchronization relationship information indicating the
second device as a partner device for synchronization, one or
more objects that are to be synchronized with the second
CDS, and a synchronization policy to be applied to the
synchronization, the method comprising:
receiving by the first device a control message
including a relationship ID corresponding to one of the pre-
stored synchronization relationship information from a control
point ( CP) in the UPnP network; and
in response to the control message, the first device
performs synchronization directly with the second device, of the
one or more synchronization objects using the synchronization
policy according to synchronization relationship information
indicated by the received relationship ID.
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 23, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over White et al. (US 2005/0055352 Al,
Mar. 10, 2005) in view of Shah et al. (US 2005/0027755 Al, Feb. 3, 2005).
Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-004639
Application 11/758,896
The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over White, Shah, and Stirbu et al. (US 2006/0041596 Al, Feb.
23, 2006). Ans. 2.
The Examiner rejects claims 6, 13, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over White, Shah, and Peng (US 6,928,467 B2, iss. Aug. 9,
2005). Ans. 2.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of White and Shah fails to teach or
suggest a "first device" that "pre-stor[ es] a plurality of relationship
identifiers" along with corresponding relationship/policy information for
each ID, and "receiv[ es]. .. a control message including a relationship ID"
as claim 1 requires. See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellants
argue the Examiner erred by mapping Shah's sync controller to both the
claimed first device that pre-stores relationship IDs, and the claimed control
point that triggers synchronization by sending a control message with a
relationship ID to the first device. Id. We are persuaded by these
arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1, or claims 3-8, 10-13, 23, 25, or 26, all of which either depend from
claim 1 or recite similar limitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 23, 25,
and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
3