Ex Parte Ohno et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 4, 2015

11447138 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 4, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TAKASHI OHNO, KENICHI HORIO,
JUN KAKUTA, and SATOSHI OKUYAMA.
____________

Appeal 2012-005550
Application 11/447,138
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, DAVID C. MCKONE,
and JON B. TORNQUIST, Administrative Patent Judges.

MCKONE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–38, which constitute all the claims pending in this application.
App. Br. 1. Claim 39 is cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2012-005550
Application 11/447,138

2
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to wireless communications using Push-
to-Talk over Cellular (PoC) services in which a message from one
transceiver is sent over a network to multiple transceivers. Spec. 2:2–9.
Each recipient processes and listens to every message. Id. at 3:12–20. A
concern in such services is that, when a message is intended primarily for
one recipient, yet it is not identified as such, that recipient may fail to listen
unless he or she is listening carefully to every message. Id. at 4:8–17.
According to the Specification, messages from one communication
device to another are managed using a repeating apparatus (e.g., a PoC
server computer) that determines which communication device has the right
to transmit a message at a given time. Id. at 21:15–22:17. A message can be
communicated with information identifying a particular receiver among a
plurality of recipients. Id. at 25:11–18. When a receiver receives the
message, it judges whether the message is intended primarily for it. Id. at
32:12–16. When the receiver judges that it is not the main target, it executes
voice processing to play the message (e.g., for speech), as it would for any
message. Id. at 33:3–7. When the receiver judges that it is the main target,
it executes voice processing (id. at 32:17–33:2), and also indicates the fact
that it is the main target (id. at 33:8–15). For example, if the receiver is not
the main target, it could output a “pip” sound; if it is the main target, it could
output a “pip, pip, pip” sound. Id. at 33:12–15.
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A data communication method for grouping a
plurality of communication apparatuses and for performing data
communicating among the grouped plurality of communication
apparatuses, comprising:
Appeal 2012-005550
Application 11/447,138

3
accepting a request of acquiring transmission right from
any communication apparatus among the plurality of
communication apparatuses;
by said communication apparatus going to acquire the
transmission right, accepting input specifying, as a main target
of data being output from said communication apparatus going
to acquire the transmission right, at least one other
communication apparatus among the communication
apparatuses;
sending the data being output from said communication
apparatus that acquired the transmission right toward said at
least one other communication apparatus, in a multi-address
calling manner;
executing judgment processing to determine whether
received data is specified for said at least one other
communication apparatus, on said at least one other
communication apparatus receiving the data sent in the multi-
address calling manner;
executing, on said at least one other communication
apparatus, data output processing of the received data, when
said at least one other communication apparatus has judged
negative; and
executing, on said at least one other communication
apparatus, not only the data output processing but also
specification output processing indicating a fact of being
specified when said at least one other communication apparatus
has judged positive.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Chen US 2003/0157945 A1 Aug. 21, 2003
Zhao US 2005/0190740 A1 Sept. 1, 2005
Shostak US 2005/0181815 A1 Aug. 18, 2005
Yoon US 7,536,180 B2 May 19, 2009
(filed Aug. 16, 2005)
Appeal 2012-005550
Application 11/447,138

4
Claims 1–5, 18–21, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Chen, Zhao, and Shostak. Ans. 4–21.
Claims 6–17 and 22–33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Chen, Zhao, Shostak, and Yoon. Ans. 21–31.
Claims 34 and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious
over Chen, Zhao, and Yoon. Ans. 32–39.
Claim 36 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Chen and Zhao. Ans. 39–41.

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1–5, 18–21, 37, AND 38
Chen discloses a push-to-talk (PTT) system in which a user pushes a
PTT button on his or her phone (a client) to initiate a speech call to a group
of listeners. Chen ¶¶ 3, 21. The client sends the message to a call server
managing the PTT session, which sends the message to the recipients (other
clients). Id. ¶¶ 28–29, 46.
Regarding claim 1, the Examiner finds that Chen discloses much of
the claim, but concedes that it does not teach:
executing judgment processing to determine whether
received data is specified for said at least one other
communication apparatus, on said at least one other
communication apparatus receiving the data sent in the multi-
address calling manner;
executing, on said at least one other communication
apparatus, data output processing of the received data, when
said at least one other communication apparatus has judged
negative; and
executing, on said at least one other communication
apparatus, not only the data output processing but also
Appeal 2012-005550
Application 11/447,138

5
specification output processing indicating a fact of being
specified when said at least one other communication apparatus
has judged positive.
Ans. 5. The Examiner finds that Zhao and Shostak teach these limitations.
Id. at 6–7.
Zhao describes a PoC system in which a user at a mobile station can
be a member of, and communicate with, more than one user group. Zhao,
Abstract. The user can send to all of the groups an encrypted message
intended for just one of the groups. Id. ¶ 9. Mobile stations in the intended
group will have the key to decrypt the message. Id. A mobile station
receiving the message will identify whether it has a valid key and, if not,
will discard the message. Id. ¶ 67. If it does have a valid key, the mobile
station will decrypt the data, process them, and output audio signals
corresponding to the data. Id.
Shostak describes a multi-user PTT communications system. Shostak,
Abstract. Shostak’s system includes a controlling computer that manages
which “badge” (wireless communication device) is a “controlling badge”
and, thus, is permitted to transmit a message to other badges. Id. ¶ 31. In a
“handoff,” where this designation changes, the user of the current
controlling badge will release a call button on the badge. Id. ¶ 31, Fig. 5.
The controlling computer sends a unicast message to the current controlling
badge, along with an audio chime, indicating that the badge will be released.
Id. The controlling computer then relays this audio chime to all of the other
badges to let them know that someone else can attempt to respond. Id. The
controlling computer designates the first badge to respond as the controlling
badge and sends it an audio chirp to indicate that the user of the new
controlling badge can start transmitting. Id.
Appeal 2012-005550
Application 11/447,138

6
The Examiner cites Zhao as teaching executing judgment processing
to determine whether received data is specified for a communication
apparatus and, specifically, as teaching judging that determination positive
or negative. Ans. 6–7. According to the Examiner, a skilled artisan would
have implemented Zhao’s teaching in Chen’s system “to enable concurrent
PoC talk groups by a mobile device.” Id.
The Examiner cites Shostak as teaching “data output processing of,
not only the data output processing.” Ans. 7. The phrase quoted by the
Examiner does not appear in that form in claim 1. Presumably, the
Examiner cites Shostak as teaching “data output processing of the received
data, when said at least one other communication apparatus has judged
negative” and “not only the data output processing but also specification
output processing indicating a fact of being specified when said at least one
other communication apparatus has judged positive.” According to the
Examiner, a skilled artisan would have implemented the features of Shostak
in the combined system of Chen and Zhao “to notify participant mobile
devices that ‘right to transmit’ of a control device has been released.”
Id.; accord id. at 47:
[A] person of ordinary skill in the art could/might
combine/modify each of the concurrent PoC talk groups
described above with Shostak’s notification for being/not being
specified to maintain order in a PoC talk group to enable just
one person to speak when the floor is open otherwise all
participants would speak at once and the conversation would
become chaotic and incoherent.
Appellants argue that nothing in the portion of Shostak cited by the
Examiner teaches a communication apparatus providing an indication that it
has received data specified for itself in addition to outputting the data that it
Appeal 2012-005550
Application 11/447,138

7
had received. App. Br. 17. Appellants further argue that Zhao does not
teach executing data output processing on messages it cannot decrypt
(messages it has judged negative) and that the Examiner has not cited
anything to suggest this behavior would have been modified. Reply Br. 2–3.
We agree with Appellants. If the features of Chen, Zhao, and Shostak
were combined in the manner posited by the Examiner, it would result in a
PoC system in which a mobile station sends an encrypted message to
multiple groups of mobile stations, with a station processing the message if
it could decrypt it and discarding the message if it could not. When the
mobile station is finished with the message, it would send an audible chime
to the remaining members of the group. The Examiner does not explain
adequately, however, how these two features would have worked together to
result in a mobile station that would process (rather than discard) a message
to which it is not an intended recipient and both process the message and
process a specification output if it is an intended recipient. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Independent claims 2, 18, 37, and 38 recite substantially the same
limitations that we find not taught with respect to claim 1. The Examiner’s
findings (Ans. 7–14, 16–21) and Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 18–19)
are substantially the same as for claim 1. Claims 3–5 depend from claim 2
and claims 19–21 depend from claim 18. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5, 18–21, 37, and 38 for the same reasons
as claim 1.

Appeal 2012-005550
Application 11/447,138

8
CLAIMS 6–17 AND 22–33
Claims 6–17 depend from claim 2 and claims 22–33 depend from
claim 18. The Examiner does not find that Yoon remedies the deficiency
with Chen, Zhao, and Shostak explained above. Accordingly, we reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6–17 and 22–33 for the same reasons as
claims 1, 2, and 18.

CLAIMS 34 AND 35
Appellants do not present separate arguments for claims 34 and 35.
Rather, Appellants argue that these claims are patentable “for reasons similar
to those” presented for claim 1. App. Br. 19–20.
Appellants’ arguments for claim 1 are insufficient to address claims
34 and 35. Unlike claim 1, claims 34 and 35 do not recite that a device
receiving a message must process the message if the message is not intended
for it and both process the message and process a specification output if the
message is intended for it. Rather, claims 34 and 35 do not address the
situation where received data are not intended primarily for the receiving
communication apparatus. Instead, claims 34 and 35 each recite that a
specified communication apparatus “determines whether the received data is
specified for the specified communication apparatus and performs
specification output processing indicating the specified communication
apparatus is specified by the output data when the specified communication
apparatus determines that the specified communication apparatus is
specified by the output data.”
The Examiner finds that Zhao’s disclosure of a mobile station
decrypting packets intended for the mobile station teaches this limitation.
Appeal 2012-005550
Application 11/447,138

9
Ans. 33, 36–37. We agree with this finding. According to the Examiner, a
skilled artisan would have combined this feature with Chen’s system “to
enable concurrent PoC talk groups by a mobile device.” Id. at 33, 37. We
conclude that this reason to combine has rational underpinning.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34 and 35.

CLAIM 36
The Examiner finds that Chen teaches each limitation of claim 36
except for “means for executing specification output processing indicating a
fact of being specified, when output data indicating the fact of being
specified as the specified apparatus is received,” which the Examiner finds
in Zhao. Ans. 40–41. Specifically, the Examiner relies on Zhao’s teaching
of a mobile station decrypting packets intended for the mobile station. Id.
Once again, according to the Examiner, a skilled artisan would have
implemented this feature of Zhao in Chen “to enable concurrent PoC talk
groups by a mobile device.” Id.
Appellants argue that the combined teachings of Chen and Zhao do
not teach both this limitation and “means for executing data output
processing for all of the output data that is received,” as recited in claim 36.
App. Br. 20 (emphasis added). We agree. If Zhao’s decryption of an
encrypted message is considered specification output processing and playing
the message is considered data output processing, only messages intended
for a mobile station (i.e., messages for which the station has the key to
decrypt) are subject to data output processing. Any messages a mobile
station in Zhao cannot decrypt are discarded. Zhao ¶ 67. The Examiner
Appeal 2012-005550
Application 11/447,138

10
does not explain adequately why such discarded messages nevertheless
would be subject to output processing.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 36.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–33 and 36–38 is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 34 and 35 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

hh