Ex Parte Park et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 27, 201612178272 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 12/178,272 07/23/2008 Joon-Ho PARK 678-3542 (P16419) 5998 66547 7590 09/27/2016 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER PALAVECINO, KATHLEEN GAGE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 3625 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/27/2016 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 JOON-HO PARK, YOUNG-JIP KIM, BYOUNG-DAI LEE, KYUNG-SHIN LEE, and SUNG-OH HWANG ____________ Appeal 2014-007552 Application 12/178,272 Technology Center 3600 ____________ Before ANTON W. FETTING, JAMES A. WORTH, and BRADLEY B. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judges. BAYAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 1–5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Takei,1 Oprescu-Surcobe,2 Majjasie,3 Sammarco,4 Burrows,5 and Zanter.6 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Takei et al., US 2007/0084935 A1, pub. Apr. 19, 2007. 2 Oprescu-Surcobe et al., US 2005/0282571 A1, pub. Dec. 22, 2005. 3 Majjasie et al., US 2007/0011205 A1, pub. Jan. 11, 2007. 4 Sammarco, US 7,694,322 B2, iss. Apr. 6, 2010. 5 Burrows, US 6,021,409, iss. Feb. 1, 2000. 6 Zanter, US 2007/0050454 A1, pub. Mar. 1, 2007. Appeal 2014-007552 Application 12/178,272 2 CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’7 claimed invention is directed to “a method for configuring a message for controlling purchase service in wireless broadcasting.” Spec., Abstract. Claims 1 and 4 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below with added bracketed matter, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A message configuring method for a Multimedia Broadcast Multicast Service (MBMS) User Service IDentifier (ID), the method comprising: [a] encoding a first identifier into a first encoded identifier; [b] encoding a second identifier into a second encoded identifier; [c] inserting, by a server, a discriminator between the first encoded identifier and the second encoded identifier, so as to form an MBMS User Service ID; and [d] transmitting, by the server, the MBMS User Service ID to a portable terminal, [e] wherein the first identifier identifies a purchase item of a broadcast service and the second identifier identifies purchase data of the broadcast service, and [f] wherein the discriminator includes a# character and the encoding of the first identifier and the second identifier includes a Base64 encoding. ANALYSIS Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 The Examiner finds that Takei’s input data set encoded into data set 1 as shown in Figure 3B corresponds to a first encoded identifier, and data set 2 corresponds to a second encoded identifier, as called for in limitations [a] and [b] of claim 1. Final Action 3–4 (mailed Aug. 18, 2012); see also 7Appellants identify the real party in interest as “Samsung Electronics Co, Ltd.” Appeal Br. 1 (filed Mar. 19, 2014). Appeal 2014-007552 Application 12/178,272 3 Answer 2–3 (mailed Apr. 29, 2014). The Examiner also finds that “a non- data character known as a function 1 character or FNC1 character (special character 5) [] inserted as a field separator in the data” corresponds to a discriminator inserted between the first and the second encoded identifiers, as required by limitation [c] of claim 1. Final Action 4, citing Takei ¶ 65. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that “Takei does not teach, disclose, or suggest encoding each Data Set 1 and Data Set 2, and then inserting a special character between an encoded Data Set 1 and an encoded Data Set 2.” Appeal Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2–3 (filed June 27, 2014). First, as the Examiner points out, Takei discloses that “the first [generating] step generates a barcode encoding data set for encoding in the barcode symbol based on the input data.” Answer 3, citing Takei ¶ 19; see also Takei Figure 1. Second, as the Examiner finds, Takei discloses that the FNC 1 character is “automatically added to the encoded data by the first generating unit 42.” Id., citing Takei ¶ 61. Third, we find that Appellants’ argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 does not require a temporal sequence of steps, but a first and second identifier encoded into encoded identifiers with a discriminator inserted between them. See Takei ¶ 65 (“As shown in FIG. 3B, when two or more data sets are combined in a single barcode symbol…FCN1 character [] is inserted as a field separator in the data…to separate the data sets during decoding.”). Appellants argue that the Examiner “compares the MBMS User Service ID of Claim 1 to a BCMCS Flow ID of Oprescu-Surcobe. However, a BCMCS Flow ID is distinct from an MBMS User Service ID. Further, neither Oprescu-Surcobe nor Takei refer to an MBMS User Service ID. Appeal 2014-007552 Application 12/178,272 4 Further, an MBMS User Service ID is not formed from a combination of BCMCS Flow IDs.” Appeal Br. 6. We also are not persuaded of reversible error here at least because Appellants have not provided persuasive technical reasoning to support their argument. Attorney argument cannot take the place of evidence in the record. See In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Rather, we find that Oprescu-Surcobe’s “invention relates generally to packet data communication systems and, in particular, to delivery of a Broadcast- Multicast Service (BCMCS) or a Multimedia Broadcast/Multimedia Service (MBMS) in a packet data communication system.” Oprescu-Surcobe ¶ 2. Oprescu-Surcobe teaches that in response to receiving the registration request, broadcast application server 122 conveys to the mobile station (MS) one or more identifiers uniquely associated with the broadcast-multicast flow, for example a BCMCS flow ID. Answer 4–5, citing Oprescu-Surcobe ¶¶ 5, 38. Thus, Oprescu-Surcobe refers to the BCMCS Flow ID as just one example of an identifier associated with a broadcast-multicast service. Furthermore, “[e]very patent application and reference relies to some extent upon knowledge of persons skilled in the art to complement that disclosed . . . .” In re Bode, 550 F.2d 656, 660 (CCPA 1977) (quoting In re Wiggins, 488 F.2d 538, 543 (CCPA 1973)). Those persons “must be presumed to know something” about the art “apart from what the references disclose.” In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516 (CCPA 1962). Persons skilled in the art of mobile broadcast technologies and multicast services are presumed to understand that BCMCS provides similar functionality to MBMS, and differences between them are mostly a result of the differences in the underlying network architecture, as supported by the teachings of Oprescu- Appeal 2014-007552 Application 12/178,272 5 Surcobe. See Oprescu-Surcobe ¶ 27. In view of Oprescu-Surcobe’s disclosure and knowledge of one skilled in the art, we find that the Examiner’s factual findings are supported by a preponderance of the evidence. We disagree with Appellants’ contention that “Oprescu-Surcobe does not teach, disclose, or suggest that the BCMCS_FLOW _ID comprises multiple identifiers” (Reply Br. 5) for the reasons discussed supra. To the extent that Appellants maintain that an explicit “teaching, suggestion, or motivation to apply an operation for placing a discriminator between two identifiers with respect to only a single identifier of a BCMCS_FLOW _ID of Oprescu-Surcobe” (id.) is required, that argument is foreclosed by KSR Int’l. Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007), in which the Supreme Court rejected the rigid application of a “teaching, suggestion, motivation” test for nonobviousness. In addition, Appellants’ argument fails because Appellants are attacking Oprescu-Surcobe individually; the rejection is based on the combined teachings of the references, not on any one of them alone. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (Nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references individually when the rejection is based on the teachings of a combination of references). The Examiner relies on Takei for the placement of a discriminator between two encoded identifiers (Final Action 4) and Majjasie for inserting, by a server, a discriminator. Final Action 5 (“Majjasie: paragraph [0039] discloses where server inserts a delimiter.”). In view of the foregoing, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. Because Appellants do not separately argue claims 2, 3, 7, and 8 Appeal 2014-007552 Application 12/178,272 6 except based on their dependency on claim 1 (see Appeal Br., 8), we sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons. Independent claim 4 and dependent claim 5 In contesting the rejection of independent claim 4, Appellants rely on substantially similar arguments presented for claim 1. See id. at 9–13. Thus, we sustain the rejection of claim 4 for the same reasons discussed above. We also sustain the rejection of claim 5, which is not argued separately except based on its dependence on independent claim 4. See id. at 14. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection is sustained. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation