Ex Parte Hwang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 18, 2017

13980443 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2017)

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. 13/980,443 07/18/2013 Sung-Oh Hwang 0201-0849 2634 68103 7590 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 EXAMINER SHELEHEDA, JAMES R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2424 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/22/2017 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): u sdocketing @ j effersonip .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 2017-000311 Application 13/980,4431 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1,6, 15, 17, 19, and 21—23, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Technology The application relates to “transmitting a control message for a multimedia service.” Spec. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at issue emphasized: 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2017-000311 Application 13/980,443 1. A method for providing multimedia content in a system, the method comprising: identifying a control message that defines a package configuration of the multimedia content; and transmitting the control message, the control message included in a packet, wherein the control message comprises: a message type field containing information on a type of the control message, a length field containing information on a length of the control message, and an optional field containing information related to a table, and a payload field containing the table, wherein the table contained in the payload field provides configuration information of the package, and wherein the information related to the table comprises a table identifier of the table and version information of the table. Rejections Claims 1,6, 15, 19, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lahtonen et al. (US 2009/0103651 Al; Apr. 23, 2009) and Yun et al. (US 7,793,320 B2; Sept. 7, 2010). Final Act. 3. Claims 17 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Lahtonen, Yun, and Suh et al. (US 2010/0162308 Al; June 24, 2010). Final Act. 6. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Lahtonen and Yun teaches or suggests “the information related to the table comprises a table identifier of the table and version information of the table,” as recited in claim 1? 2 Appeal 2017-000311 Application 13/980,443 ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “an optional field containing information related to a table” and “the information related to the table comprises a table identifier of the table and version information of the table.” Appellants argue “Yun merely discloses a cell identifier, but it fails to disclose a table identifier.” App. Br. 6 (emphasizing Yun 13:4—9). Appellants further contend Yun “fails to disclose where an identifier is located (i.e., ‘optional field’ of the claims).” Id. We agree with the Examiner, however, that “Yun specifically discloses transmitting an MGT [master guide table] including information which indicates the identifier of a table . . . and version number of each PSIP table.” Ans. 3 (citing Yun 13:16—18, 13:25—28, 13:48—55, Fig. 7); Final Act. 4—5. In particular, Yun discloses, “The MGT defines the packet identifier (PID) of the PSIP table excluding the STT, a version number and a table size.” Yun 13:16—18 (emphases added). We also agree with the Examiner that “one cannot show non obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); Ans. 3^4. Here, “it is the combination of Fahtonen and Yun which meet[s] the current claim limitations, as Fahtonen discloses the claimed ‘optional field’ which indicates PSI ‘table type’ information and Yun discloses the transmission of more specific table type information identifying an identifier and version number of the table.” Ans. 4. Appellants argue Yun’s data is not Fahtonen’s “type” and Yun’s MGT in Figure 7 is “16 bits long” whereas “Fahtonen’s optional field is eight bits.” Reply Br. 4. However, in addition to not raising this late 3 Appeal 2017-000311 Application 13/980,443 presentation of argument in their Appeal Brief and, thereby, waiving the argument (see 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.41(b)(2)), we note “[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference.” Keller, 642 F.2d at 425. Given the Examiner’s findings (see, e.g., Ans. 4), Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated and capable of modifying Lahtonen and Yun to provide the claimed identifier and version number in an optional field.2 Appellants further argue “Suh adds nothing to cure the deficiencies of Lahtonen and Yun.” App. Br. 7. We are not persuaded that Lahtonen or Yun are deficient for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and claims 6, 15, 17, 19, and 21—23, which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons. See App. Br. 7; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 6, 15, 17, 19, and 21—23. No time for taking subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner also may wish to consider whether the claimed “table identifier” and “version information” constitute non-functional descriptive material because they are not elsewhere used for any function in claim 1. See MPEP § 2111.05. 4