Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2020

2019003517 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2020)

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.
14/351,419 04/11/2014 Sung-Oh Hwang 0201-1100 2623
68103 7590 12/02/2020
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
RABOVIANSKI, JIVKA A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2426
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2020 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usdocketing@jeffersonip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNG-OH HWANG, KYUNG-MO PARK, SUNG-RYEUL
RHYU, and JAE-YEON SONG
Appeal 2019-003517
Application 14/351,419
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, ERIC B. CHEN, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 25–27 and 33–41 (see Final Act. 1).
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Samsung
Electronics Co., Ltd. (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-003517
Application 14/351,419

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to an apparatus and method for configuring a
control message in a broadcasting system. Claim 25, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
25. A method of transmitting a signaling message that provides
signaling information related to content package consumption to
a content consuming apparatus in a content providing apparatus,
the method comprising:

identifying at least one table among a plurality of tables
based on type information, the at least one table comprises the
signaling information required for consuming a content package
at the content consuming apparatus;

generating, the signaling message comprising a payload,
the type information, length information and extension
information, the payload includes the identified at least one table;
and
transmitting the signaling message to the content
consuming apparatus,

wherein the type information indicates an identifier of the
signaling message,

wherein the length information indicates a length of the
signaling message,

wherein the extension information indicates information
on the at least one table included in the payload, and

wherein one of the identified at least one table is a device
capability information table (DCIT) including information on a
device capabilities for consuming the content package.
Appeal 2019-003517
Application 14/351,419

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Williams US 2008/0031151 A1 Feb. 7, 2008
Chen US 2009/0022065 A1 Jan. 22, 2009
Chikahisa US 2009/0087164 A1 Apr. 2, 2009

REJECTIONS2
Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis
25–27, 34–36, 38–41 103 Chen, Williams
33, 37 103 Chen, Williams,
Chikahisa

We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to
make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived
(See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv)).

OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims 25 – 27, 34 – 36, and 38 – 41
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 25–27, 34–36,
and 38–41, is not obvious over Chen and Williams (Appeal Br. 7–10). The
issues presented by the arguments is whether the combination of Chen and
Williams teaches or suggests:

2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdrew (Ans. 7) the rejection of claims 25–
27 and 33–41 as being directed to a judicial exception without significantly
more, set forth in the Final Action (Final Act. 2–4).
Appeal 2019-003517
Application 14/351,419

4
identifying at least one table among a plurality of tables based on
type information, the at least one table comprises the signaling
information required for consuming a content package at the
content consuming apparatus, . . .
the payload includes the identified at least one table,
as recited in claim 25 (Appeal Br. 7).
The Examiner finds Williams teaches this limitation in tables
illustrated in Figures 8–12 and, particularly, the table of Figure 8 which
“comprises IP data and streaming data and the consumption of the data”
(Final Act. 5; Ans. 7).
Appellant first argues Chen’s table 1 fails to teach the disputed
limitation (Appeal Br. 7); however, as noted by the Examiner, the Examiner
did not rely on Chen to teach this limitation (Final Act. 5; Advisory Act.;
Ans. 7–8).
Appellant asserts the Examiner finds “Chen discloses ‘other
information may be recorded in the same field if the message type is
different,’ and Williams discloses ‘tables that define the information needed
to consume the media’” (Appeal Br. 9). According to Appellant, however,
both references “fail to disclose or suggest at least one table to be included
in the payload of the corresponding message that depends on the type of
message which may be defined differently” (Appeal Br. 9).
Appellant identifies disclosure in the Specification as describing the
“identifying” element (Appeal Br. 2, 6–7). The Specification describes
when a message type is selected, executing a control to configure a payload
of the control message (Spec. 39:26–29).
When the request for configuring the control message
exists, the transmitting apparatus determines a message type of
Appeal 2019-003517
Application 14/351,419

5
the requested control message in step 812, and determines the
purpose of use of the control message based on the determined
message type. The pu[r]pose of use of a control message has been
described for each message type with reference to FIG. 6.
When the pu[r]pose of use of the control message is
determined based on the message type, the transmitting
apparatus determines whether the purpose of use of the control
message is for transmitting the MMT package/asset information
in step 814.
(Spec. 40:32–41:7). Thus, the Specification describes determining a
message type of the requested control message and the purpose of use of the
control message based on the message type (id.).
The Examiner relies on Williams’ tables shown in Figures 8–11 (Final
Act. 5). According to the Examiner, Figure 8 illustrates a table with IP data
and streaming data and the consumption of data (id. (citing Williams, Fig.
8)). Appellant does not dispute this finding (see generally Appeal Br.).
The Examiner further finds Chen discloses “generating, the signaling
message comprising a payload, the type information, length information and
extension information, the payload includes the identified at least one table,”
as recited in claim 25 (Final Act. 5). Chen teaches transmitting an IP
message having an RTP (Real-Time Transport Protocol) header (Chen ¶ 8,
Abstract; Final Act. 5). The RTP header includes “[t]he field of a Payload
type (PT) . . . used to indicate a service type of the data in the IP message”
(Chen ¶ 8; Final Act. 5).
Thus, the combination of Chen and Williams teaches identifying at
least one table among a plurality of tables based on type information, i.e., the
Payload Type identifies the table in the payload (as shown in Figure 8 of
Williams) from among the plurality of tables available.
Appeal 2019-003517
Application 14/351,419

6
The Examiner then determines incorporating Williams teachings of
Figure 8 –– a table “compris[ing] IP data and streaming data and the
consumption of the data”––into Chen’s system would have been obvious
“for the purpose of sending full information of consume[r] content” (Final
Act. 6). We determine Chen teaches identifying the content (payload) from
among a plurality of content, based on type information (PT) (Chen ¶ 8;
Final Act. 6). Chen further teaches additional fields in the RTP header as
noted by the Examiner (Final Act. 6; Chen ¶¶ 8, 21; see Ans. 8; Chen
¶¶ 153–154). Williams teaches the payload may include a table comprising
IP data and streaming data and the consumption of data (Williams, Figs. 8–
11; Final Act. 5). Thus, we determine an ordinarily skilled artisan would
find the combination of Chen and Williams teaches or suggests:
identifying at least one table among a plurality of tables [(Figs.
8–11 of Williams)] based on type information [(PT taught by
Chen)], the at least one table comprises the signaling information
required for consuming a content package at the content
consuming apparatus, . . .
the payload includes the identified at least one table,
as recited in claim 25.
Appellant argues the combination does not “disclose or suggest at
least one table to be included in the payload of the corresponding message
that depends on the type of message which may be defined differently”
(Appeal Br. 9). We are not persuaded. Initially, we note Appellant provides
insufficient details or evidence to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
findings. Moreover, the claim does not recite “at least one table . . . that
depends on the type of message which may be defined differently,” as
argued by Appellant and, in particular, does not recite that the type of
Appeal 2019-003517
Application 14/351,419

7
message may be “defined differently.” Appellant does not identify where
this feature is recited. Furthermore, the claim does not recite who or what
does the “identifying.”
Appellant next argues Williams “does not disclose or suggest at least
one table to be included in the payload of the corresponding message that
depends on the type of message” (Reply Br. 4). We are not persuaded. The
claim does not recite “depends on the type of message” but rather, recites
“based on the type of message.” The Examiner relies on the combination of
Williams and Chen (Appeal Br. 5), while Appellant is arguing Williams
individually. Thus, Appellant fails to proffer sufficient evidence or
argument to persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings.
Appellant contends “claim 25 can achieve an unexpected effect that
the content consuming apparatus receives only the limited signaling
information necessary for consuming the content packet itself among the
entire signaling information from the content providing apparatus without
receiving the entire signaling information related to the consumption of the
content package” (Appeal Br. 9). Appellant, however, provides insufficient
evidence or argument to show claim 25 achieves this unexpected effect.
Moreover, as noted by the Examiner, claim 25 fails to recite the “content
consuming apparatus receives only the limited signaling information,” as
argued (Ans. 9). Indeed, claim 25 does not recite any receipt of signaling
information. Furthermore, claim 25 does not limit the type of signaling
information received; rather, claim 25 recites the contents of the signaling
message comprising information (“a payload, the type information, . . .”).
Therefore, the signaling message may comprise additional information.
Appeal 2019-003517
Application 14/351,419

8
Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Chen and Williams teaches the disputed elements or in
concluding the combination of teachings would have been obvious.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claim 25 for obviousness over Chen and Williams. Independent claims 34
and 38 were argued on the basis of claim 25 (Appeal Br. 10) as were
dependent claims 26, 27, 35, 36, and 39–41 (id.).
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 25–27, 34–36, and 38–41
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Chen and Williams.

35 U.S.C. § 103(a): Claims 33 and 37
Appellant contends the invention as recited in claims 33 and 37, is not
obvious over Chen, Williams, and Chikahisa due to their dependencies on
independent claims 25 and 34, respectively (Appeal Br. 10). For the reasons
set forth above, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Chen, Williams, and Chikahisa teaches or suggests the
elements as recited in claims 33 and 37, not separately argued. Therefore,
we sustain the rejection of claims 33 and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for
obviousness over Chen, Williams, and Chikahisa.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejections are AFFIRMED.
More specifically,
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 25–27 and 33–41 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appeal 2019-003517
Application 14/351,419

9
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
25–27, 34–
36, 38–41
103 Chen, Williams 25–27, 34–
36, 38–41

33, 37 103 Chen, Williams,
Chikahisa
33, 37
Overall
Outcome
25–27, 33–
41

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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