Ex Parte Paila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2013

11539463 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TONI PAILA and TOPI POHJOLAINEN
____________________

Appeal 2010-011688
Application 11/539,463
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
DAVID M. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011688
Application 11/539,463

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claim 1-29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claims 1 and 21 under appeal reads as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
an input configured to receive data to be included in an electronic
service guide (ESG) fragment for transmission;
an identifier module configured to determine a notification associated
with the ESG fragment is part of a notification service;
an ESG fragment assembler configured to assemble the ESG fragment
with a service fragment, the service fragment including a
service fragment type parameter for instantiating the ESG
fragment as corresponding to the notification service and
configured to assemble the ESG fragment with an access
fragment, the access fragment including an access fragment
type parameter for declaring the ESG fragment as
corresponding to an access of the notification service; and
an output for transmitting the ESG fragment to the destination,
wherein the ESG fragment includes a parameter for determining
reception information for the notification.

Appeal 2010-011688
Application 11/539,463

3
21. An apparatus comprising:
an input configured to receive an electronic service guide (ESG)
fragment;
a parser configured to identify a first parameter, a second parameter,
and a third parameter in the ESG fragment, the first parameter
declaring a notification as part of a notification service in a
notification channel, the second parameter instantiating the
ESG fragment as corresponding to the notification service, and
the third parameter as corresponding to an access of the
notification service; and
a processor configured to process a service corresponding to the ESG
fragment as a notification.

Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-19 and 22-29 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dudkiewicz (US
2002/0152474 A1), Chane (US 2003/0084449 Al), and OMA (OMA Open
Mobile Alliance; “Service Guide for Mobile Broadcast Services”; Draft
Version 1.0 - 02 Sep 2005). 1
The Examiner similarly rejected claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Dudkiewicz, Chane,
and OMA. 2

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2-19 and 22-29. Except for
our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claim 20. Except for our ultimate
decision, this claim is not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2010-011688
Application 11/539,463

4
Appellants’ Contention
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
“Dudkiewicz does not assemble an ESG fragment for transmission at
all, as the EPG is already assembled and provided to the metadata generator,
so there is no EPG or ESG fragment to be assembled at the point the EPG
data enters the Metadata generator 18.” (App. Br. 10).
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim
21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]o the extent OMA discloses any parameters, there is no
indication that there is a first parameter for declaring a
notification as part of a notification service in a notification
channel, a second parameter for instantiating the ESG
fragment as corresponding to the notification service, and a
third parameter for declaring the ESG fragment as
corresponding to an access of the notification service.
Moreover, even if one assumes that such parameters were
taught by OMA, which they are not because OMA is not
concerned with providing a notification service, there is no
indication in OMA that such parameters would all be combined
to form an ESG fragment, as claimed.
(App. Br. 11).

Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1 and 21 as being obvious?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
Appeal 2010-011688
Application 11/539,463

5
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following arguments for emphasis.
As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree that the Examiner
has erred. We agree with the Examiner reasoning. (Ans. at the paragraph
bridging pages 16-17).
As to Appellants’ above contention 2, we disagree that the Examiner
has erred. Appellants state “[i]n this example, the type fragment of the
service fragment may indicate that the type of service is a notification
service (e.g., broadcasting breaking news).” (Appellants’ Specification [63]).
Appellants’ argument that “OMA is not concerned with providing a
notification service,” is not well founded as the Examiner relied on Chane
to show that notification services such as that disclosed by Appellants were
known in that prior art. The Examiner relied on OMA to show the known
format of parameters used to control access to services. As to the
application of such parameters to a notification service, we agree with the
Examiner reasoning except that we note “AccessType” is found at page 24
of OMA rather than page 18 as stated by the Examiner. (Ans. 20).

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-29 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1-29 are not patentable.
Appeal 2010-011688
Application 11/539,463

6

DECISION

The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-29 are 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

msc