Ex Parte Sung et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 7, 201511329614 (P.T.A.B. May. 7, 2015) 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. 11/329,614 01/11/2006 Sang-Kyung Sung 678-3882 8723 66547 7590 05/07/2015 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER NGUYEN, VAN KIM T ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/07/2015 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 SANG-KYUNG SUNG, JOON-GOO PARK, and SUNG-JIN PARK ____________ Appeal 2012-011586 Application 11/329,6141 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and BRUCE T. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judges. WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–12, 14, 16, 17, 27, and 32–37. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellants’ claimed invention “relates to a method and system for establishing a network initiated PoC [push-to-talk over cellular service] group session . . . .” (Spec. 1.) 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 1.) Appeal 2012-011586 Application 11/329,614 2 Claims 1 and 27 are the independent claims and are reproduced below (emphasis added): 1. A method for establishing an initiation of a group session at a server, which manages network-initiation of group sessions between a plurality of clients, the method comprising: receiving a request message of a previous setup for the group session from an originating client, the request message including a type of a session initiation content for establishing the group session; determining whether an event corresponding to the session initiation content stored in the server occurs according to receiving the request message of the previous setup for the group session; and directly initiating the group session between a plurality of clients when the event occurs, wherein the step of directly initiating the session includes transmitting an INVITE message to the originating client transmitting the request message of the previous setup for the group session when the event corresponding to the session initiation content occurs; and transmitting the INVITE message to a terminating client intending to connect to the session when a response signal of the INVITE message is received from the originating client. 27. A method for establishing a network initiated session at an IP (Internet Protocol) terminal, the method comprising: transmitting session establishment previous setup information, which includes a time at which a client intending to initiate a session desires that the session is established and an address information list of users invited to the session to a session management server using an SIP (Session Initiation Protocol) PUBLISH message, and registering the session establishment previous setup information with the session management server; receiving an INVITE message from the session management server when an event corresponding to the session Appeal 2012-011586 Application 11/329,614 3 establishment previous setup information occurs, and sending an approval message in response to the INVITE message; receiving a Floor Granted signal using the Real Time Transport Control Protocol (RTCP); and transmitting, to a specific user, a media signal which includes the address information list of users invited to the session. REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3, 8, 10–12, 14, 16, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen (US 2005/0233776 A1, pub. Oct. 20, 2005), Trossen ‘271 (US 7,293,271 B2, iss. Nov. 6, 2007), Idnani (US 7,155,248 B2, iss. Dec. 26, 2006), and Rosenberg, RFC3261–SIP: Session Initiation Protocol § 4 (June 2002). Claim 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Trossen ‘271, Idnani, and Roach, RFC3265– Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)-Specific Event Notification § 7 (June 2002). Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Trossen ‘271, Idnani, Rosenberg, and Trossen ‘302 (US 2004/0255302 A1, iss. Dec. 16, 2004). Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Trossen ‘271, Idnani, Rosenberg, and Bhutiani (US 7,359,725 B2, iss. Apr. 15, 2008). Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Trossen ‘271, Idnani, Rosenberg, and Plestid (US 2006/0058052 A1, iss. Mar. 16, 2006). Appeal 2012-011586 Application 11/329,614 4 Claims 27 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Trossen ‘271, Idnani, and Plestid. Claims 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Trossen ‘271, Idnani, Plestid, and Trossen ‘302. Claims 33 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Trossen ‘271, Idnani, Plestid, and Roach. Claims 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Allen, Trossen ‘271, Idnani, Plestid, and Bhutiani. ANALYSIS Claims 1, 3–12, 14, 16, 17, and 37 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds that Allen discloses “receiving a request message of a previous setup for the group session from an originating client” (citing Allen ¶¶ 68–70 and 74) and that Trossen ‘271 discloses “the request message including a type of session initiation content for establishing the group session between a plurality of clients (requester may subscribe to be notified for particular event based upon particular semantic, col. 7: line 39–col. 8: line 57).” (Answer 6.) Appellants argue that “Allen teaches that a server receives a Rule defining a member of a dynamic group and populates the dynamic group with members from mobile stations. This does not read on the recitations at issue in Claim 1.” (Appeal Br. 6, citation omitted.) Even if paragraphs 68–70 and 74 of Allen are read as only disclosing a group address list and publishing presence information related to that list, the Examiner also cites paragraph 49 of Allen as disclosing that “[a]n end user may use a PoC group to initiate an instant group talk session or a chat Appeal 2012-011586 Application 11/329,614 5 group session . . . .” (Answer 20.) Specifically, paragraph 49 of Allen discloses: End users use GLMS 308 [Group and List Management Server] to manage groups, contact lists, and access lists. A contact list may be used by end users to establish an instant talk session with other PoC users or PoC Groups. An end user may have one or several contact lists including identities of other PoC users or PoC groups. Contact list management includes operations to allow UE 302 to store and retrieve the contact lists managed by GLMS 308. End users can define PoC groups, particularly as described further below with reference to FIGS. 4-5. An end user may use a PoC group to initiate an instant group talk session or a chat group talk session, depending on the type of group. Thus, Allen discloses not only group address lists but also using such previously setup lists in initiating a PoC session. Appellants additionally argue that “the request message of the previous setup for the group session is received from an originating client in Claim 1, in further contrast with the rules that are addressed by the invited users (such as the Italian food loving fellow users) in Allen.” (Reply Br. 2.) Appellants appear to be arguing that in Allen the “request message of a previous setup for the group session” is coming from a user rather than from a client. But Allen discloses that an end user may use the GLMS server in conjunction with the PoC server to send invitations to the previously setup group list and establish a path for the PoC voice communications. (Allen Fig. 5 and ¶¶ 70 and 75–77.) Thus, regardless of whether the user equipment or the PoC server is considered the originating client, Allen discloses a request message coming from an originating client. If, on the other hand, Appellants are arguing that “previous setup for the group session” means that there must have been a previous group PoC, Appeal 2012-011586 Application 11/329,614 6 Appellants do not clearly make that argument or direct us to any support in the Specification for such a claim construction. Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants do not provide additional arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 3–12, 14, 16, 17, and 37 which depend directly or indirectly from claim 1. Therefore, for the reasons discussed, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3–12, 14, 16, 17, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 27 and 32–36 Appellants argue that Idnani teaches that the PTT [push-to-talk] session may be either delayed or in real-time in relation to the request to establish the PTT session, and fails to provide any teaching as to how the delay is set. Thus, Appellants respectfully assert that Allen in view of Idnani fails to teach transmitting session establishment previous setup information, which includes a time at which a client intending to initiate a session desires that the session is established and an address information list of users invited to the session, as in Claim 27. (Appeal Br. 11.) Appellants further argue that “Indani [sic] discloses sending an invite message when a specific time reaches, but the specific time is not set by an original client for establishing the group session, in contrast with Claim 27.” (Id. at 12.) The Examiner responds that Idnani teaches “Many PTT implementations, including the PoC based PTT implementation, also provide contact list functionality. A contact list typically contains the identifiers of other users or group [sic, groups] such that an end user may Appeal 2012-011586 Application 11/329,614 7 initiate a PTT call by selecting one or more entries from the list” (col. 3: lines 40–45); and a user using an UE 16 may schedule the PTT session to initiate at a proper time, e.g., begin immediately or at some point in the future (col. 4: lines 4–48, and col. 6: lines 9–17). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made that the specific time can be set by the original client for establishing the group session. (Answer 24.) Although Idnani does not explicitly state that a user or client can set “a time at which a client intend[s] to initiate a session,” Idnani, which is titled “System and Method for Initiating Push-to-Talk Sessions Between Outside Services and User Equipment,” discloses “[i]f the outside service 14 is a UE initiated type of service (e.g., wake-up call service), as a result of the sign up, the SIP URI [Session Initiated Protocol Universal Resource Identifier] of the outside service 14 will be placed in the contact list of the UE 16.” (Idnani, col. 4, ll. 30-34, emphasis added.) Particularly in view of the disclosure in Idnani of use of the service for a user equipment initiated wake-up call, it seems clear that a client can set a specific time to initiate the session. We are also not persuaded by Appellants argument that [i]n the present claims, the feature of receiving an INVITE message from the session management server when an event corresponding to the session establishment previous setup information occurs, and sending an approval message in response to the INVITE message, is considered as one configuration, not two configurations of receiving an INVITE message and when an event corresponding to the session establishment previous setup information occurs. (Appeal Br. 13.) Appeal 2012-011586 Application 11/329,614 8 We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Allen teaches user-2404 and user-3406 receiving an INVITE message from the session management server (PoC 304), and sending an approval message (SIP 2000K) in response to the INVITE message (¶¶[0075–0077]), thus one configuration.” (Answer 25, emphasis added.) With respect to Appellants’ arguments regarding claim 1 that Appellants apply to claim 27 (see Appeal Br. 11–12), for the reasons discussed above with regard to claim 1, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred. Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appellants do not provide additional arguments with regard to the rejection of claims 32–36 which depend directly or indirectly from claim 27. Therefore, for the reasons discussed, Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 32–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–12, 14, 16, 17, 27, and 32–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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 rvb Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation