Ex Parte Ryu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 2, 2015

11526023 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 2, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte YOUNG-SOOK RYU, JUN-HWA SEO,
MYEON-KEE YOUN, and SEONG-JOON JEON
____________________

Appeal 2012-010230
Application 11/526,023
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JASON V. MORGAN, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.

HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-010230
Application 11/526,023

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–13, 15–19, 21, and 22.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
The invention is directed to “a handoff system and method for a dual
mode terminal.” Spec. ¶ 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A handoff system of a dual mode terminal, comprising:
a dual mode terminal which receives, from a router of a
second network, a message comprising location information of
the router of the second network while performing handoff
from a first network to the second network, and which transmits
a registration request message comprising the location
information of the router of the second network; and
a home agent which transcodes data transmitted from a
content providing server to be adapted for a bandwidth of the
second network on the basis of information provided in the
registration request message transmitted from the dual mode
terminal, and transmits the transcoded data to the dual mode
terminal,
the registration request message comprises at least one of
information about each network, information about a
transcoding flag which indicates whether transcoding is needed,
and information about a media format decodable by the dual
mode terminal.

Appeal 2012-010230
Application 11/526,023

3
PRIOR ART
Oh
Lee
US 2006/0014539 A1
US 2006/0128385 A1
Jan. 19, 2006
June 15, 2006

REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4–9, 11–13, 15–19, 21 and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C §103(a) as unpatentable over Lee and Oh. Ans. 5.

ISSUES AND ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner has erred. As explained below, we are persuaded
by Appellants’ arguments the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4–7,
13, 15–19, 21, and 22; however, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 8, 9, 11, and 12.

I. Whether Oh teaches a home agent that transcodes data from a
content provider based on information provided in a mobile
terminal’s registration request message.

Independent claim 1 recites, inter alia, “a home agent which
transcodes data from a content providing server to be adapted for a
bandwidth of [a] second network on the basis of information provided in [a]
registration request message transmitted from [a] dual mode terminal, and
transmits the transcoded data to the dual mode terminal.” Claims App’x.
Oh discloses a mobile terminal 100 that receives data from a content
provider 140 through a layer 2 tunnel between a first access point 110 in a
first network and a router 130. Oh ¶ 18, Fig. 2. To effect a handover to a
second access point 120 in a second network, Oh discloses mobile terminal
Appeal 2012-010230
Application 11/526,023

4
100 (a) sends a message (VHO-REQUEST) to router 130 to generate a new
layer 2 tunnel (NEW L2-T) between router 130 and second access point 120;
(b) sends a message to content provider 140 to change its transmission
bandwidth to one supported by the second network; and (c) receives data
from content provider 140 through the new layer 2 tunnel between router
130 and second access point 120 at the bandwidth supported by the second
network. Id.
The Examiner finds this disclosure teaches or suggests a home agent
that transcodes data from a content provider adapted for the bandwidth of a
second network, as recited in claim 1. Ans. 6, 9. Appellants argue the cited
disclosure neither teaches nor suggests transcoding data to accommodate the
difference in bandwidth between the first and second networks. App. Br. 10.
Specifically, Appellants argue Oh’s teaching that a content provider changes
its transmission bandwidth is “clearly different from an additional step of
performing transcoding of the data from the content providing server.”
Reply Br. 5.
We find Appellants’ argument persuasive. While the Examiner finds
Oh teaches content provider 140 changes its transmission bandwidth in
response to a message from mobile terminal 100, the Examiner does not find
the content provider changes its bandwidth by transcoding the data, or that it
was well known and would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art that changing the transmission bandwidth necessarily includes
transcoding the data. Nor has the Examiner found the other references of
record teach this feature. Consequently, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1.
Appeal 2012-010230
Application 11/526,023

5
Independent claims 13 and 18 recite similar transcoding limitations,
and we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same
reasons as claim 1. Claims App’x, App. Br. 13–15. Claims 2 and 4–7
depend from claim 1; claims 15–17 depend from claim 13; and claims 19,
21, and 22 depend from claim 18. Claims App’x. We therefore do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 4–7, 13, 15–19, 21, and 22 for
the same reasons as claim 1.

II. Whether Lee teaches receiving from a router of a second
network a message while performing a handoff from a first
network to the second network.

Independent claim 8 recites a dual mode terminal comprising, inter
alia, “a controller which receives, from a router of a second network, a
message comprising location information of the router of the second
network while performing handoff from a first network to the second
network.” Claims App’x.
Lee discloses a mobile terminal (MS 140) connected to a router in a
first network (FA1) and seeking handoff to a router in a second network
(FA2). Lee Fig. 2. The routers FA1 and FA2 “are previously aware of
mutual information by sharing the mutual information through router
discovery.” Lee ¶ 26. To effect the handoff, Lee’s “MS 140 transfers a
proxy router solicitation (ProxyRtSol) message, which requests information
about the FA2 to be newly connected, to the FA1 previously connected.”
Lee ¶ 27, Fig. 2. The message includes a link ID of the second network. Id.
First network router FA1 “replies to the proxy router solicitation message
with a proxy router advertisement message that includes the CoA [care-of-
Appeal 2012-010230
Application 11/526,023

6
address] of the FA2 corresponding to the link ID that the MS 140
requested.” Lee ¶ 28, Fig. 2.
The Examiner finds these disclosures teach or suggest a dual mode
terminal receiving a message from a router of the second network
comprising location information of the router of the second network as
recited in claim 8. Ans. 5–6, 9–10. In particular, because “the claim as
disclosed does not indicate anywhere whether the message is directly
received from the router of second network.” Ans. 6 (emphasis added).
Appellants argue “Lee’s MS does not receive the proxy router advertisement
message, which includes the CoA of the FA2, from the FA2 while
performing handoff from FA1 to FA2.” App. Br. 12–13. Appellants
further argue “[w]hile the Examiner alleges that the MS 140 acquires a new
care-of-address of the new network during the handoff procedure, Lee fails
to teach or suggest that the MS 140 acquires such new care-of-address from
the router of the new network during the handoff.” Reply Br. 7.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As the Examiner
finds, claim 8 does not require the dual mode terminal to receive a message
containing the location of the second network router directly from the
second network router. Ans. 6. Consequently, when Lee’s mobile terminal
receives, during handoff, the proxy router advertisement message containing
the location of the second network router (FA2) from the first network router
(FA1), it indirectly receives a message previously sent from FA2 to FA1
during router discovery containing the location of FA2. Lee ¶¶ 26, 28. For
this reason, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8. Moreover,
because Appellants do not separately argue for the patentability of claim 9,
Appeal 2012-010230
Application 11/526,023

7
App. Br. 18, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 for the same
reason.

III. Whether Lee teaches or suggests a mobile terminal setting a
transcoding flag indicating whether transcoding is needed.

Claim 11 recites a dual mode terminal that “sets [a] transcoding flag
to ‘1’ when the data needs transcoding on the basis of information about a
service bandwidth of the second network,” while claim 12 recites the
terminal sets the transcoding flag to “0” when it does not need transcoding.
Claims App’x.
Oh discloses a mobile terminal requesting a bandwidth change from a
data providing server by sending a real time transport protocol (RTP) control
protocol (RTCP) message containing an application (APP) message
requesting the change. Oh ¶¶ 52–53. Oh further discloses that when the
data providing server changes its bandwidth (BW), it “can transmit a
message acknowledging the BW change to the crossover router 130. An
RTP packet can be applied for the message acknowledging the BW change.”
Oh ¶ 56. Oh discloses “when the RTP packet is applied as the message of
acknowledging the BW change . . . the M field of the RTP packet is set to
1.” Oh ¶ 57.
The Examiner finds these disclosures teach or suggest a dual mode
terminal setting a transcoding flag based on information about the service
bandwidth of a second network. Ans. 7, 10–11. Appellants argue claims 11
and 12 require the message containing the transcoding flag be sent by the
dual mode terminal; whereas Oh teaches the data provider server sends the
RTP packet with the M field flagging the change of bandwidth. App. Br.
Appeal 2012-010230
Application 11/526,023

8
16–17. But the Examiner also finds “Oh teaches and discloses a mobile
terminal transmits a message of requesting a bandwidth BW change. The
message contains fields of information. One of those fields includes
indication such as ‘1’ in case of a bandwidth change.” Ans. 10 (citing Oh
¶¶ 54–57) (emphasis added). Appellants do not contest these findings in
their Reply Brief; nor do they argue they constitute new grounds of
rejection. Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11
and 12.

IV. Arguments not addressed.
Appellants raise additional arguments for the patentability of claims 6
and 16. App. Br. 17–18. Because we do not sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1 and 13 from which claims 6 and 16
depend, respectively, we do not address Appellants’ arguments regarding the
patentability of these claims. See Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421,
1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (finding an administrative agency is at liberty to reach
a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”).

DECISION
For the reasons indicated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 8, 9, 11 and 12, and do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 2, 4–7, 13, 15–19, 21 and 22.
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).
Appeal 2012-010230
Application 11/526,023

9

AFFIRMED-IN-PART
llw