11138039 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 9, 2011)

Ex Parte Rajkotia

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesMar 9, 2011

11138039 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 9, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte PURVA R. RAJKOTIA _____________ Appeal 2009-008289 Application 11/138,039 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before, ROBERT E. NAPPI, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-008289 Application 11/138,039 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and system of providing broadcast and multicast services to a wireless device. See Spec: 4-6. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. For use in a wireless network capable of communicating with a plurality of mobile stations in a coverage area of the wireless network, a method of provisioning broadcast services and multicast services in one of the mobile stations, the method comprising: receiving a selection of a program to be transmitted by a base station at a subsequent predetermined time; generating a BCMC Request Order based on the selection, the BCMC Request Order comprising an encryption key for use in encrypting the program before transmission from the base station; and sending the BCMC Request Order to the base station to request transmission of the program at the subsequent predetermined time. REFERENCES Grilli US 2004/0162071 A1 Aug. 19, 2004 Yi US 2004/0229629 A1 Nov. 18, 2004 Wang US 2005/0075107 A1 Apr. 7, 2005 2 Appeal 2009-008289 Application 11/138,039 Salo US 2005/0097624 A1 May 5, 2005 Hawkes US 7,185,362 B2 Feb. 27, 2007 (filed Aug. 28, 2002) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 6-7, 15-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hawkes. Ans. 3-6. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hawkes and Grilli. Ans. 6-7. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hawkes and Yi. Ans. 7-8. Claims 3-5 and 8-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hawkes, Grilli, and Salo. Ans. 8-13. ISSUE Appellant argues on pages 15-34 of the Appeal Brief and pages 12-27 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20 is in error. Appellant argues that none of the references disclose “the BCMC Request Order comprising an encryption key for use in encrypting the program before transmission from the base station,” as recited in claims 1 and 15. App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 17. Appellant also argues that claim 8’s similar limitation is also not disclosed by the references. App. Br. 29; Reply Br. 25. Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20 are dependent upon claims 1, 8, and 15. Thus, with respect to claims 1-20, Appellant’s contention presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Wang in view of 3 Appeal 2009-008289 Application 11/138,039 Hawkes discloses a BCMC Request Order comprising an encryption key for use in encrypting the program before transmission from the base station?2 ANALYSIS Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. Claim 1 requires the BCMC Request Order to contain an encryption key. Independent claims 8 and 15 contain similar limitations. Appellant argues that none of the references disclose a BCMC Request Order that contains an encryption key. App. Br. 19 and 29; Reply Br. 17 and 25. We agree. In the Examiner’s rejection, the Examiner initially finds that Hawkes discloses a request order that contains an encryption key. Ans. 4. Subsequently, the Examiner, on page 16 of the Answer, discloses that Wang alone discloses this limitation on page 8, ¶ [0099] and that Hawkes is used to provide further support. However, as correctly noted by Appellant, both Hawkes’ system and Wang’s system do not disclose a request order that contains an encryption key that is sent to the base station. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 13. Instead, Hawkes’ system and Wang’s system disclose just the opposite, i.e., an encryption key being sent from the base station to the mobile unit. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 13. Thus, the Examiner has not shown a BCMC Request Order that includes an encryption key. The additional 2 Appellant makes additional arguments regarding claims 1-20. App. Br. 15- 34; Reply Br. 12-27. We do not reach these additional issues since the issue of whether Wang in view of Hawkes discloses a BCMC Request Order comprising an encryption key for use in encrypting the program before transmission from the base station is dispositive of the case. 4 Appeal 2009-008289 Application 11/138,039 teachings of Grilli and Salo do not make up for the deficiencies noted above. Therefore, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-20. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding that Wang in view of Hawkes discloses a BCMC Request Order comprising an encryption key for use in encrypting the program before transmission from the base station. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED ELD DOCKET CLERK P.O. DRAWER 800889 DALLAS, TX 75380 5