Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2016

12626115 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/626,115 11125/2009
66547 7590 04/27/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Do-Young Kim
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
678-3814 (Pl 7250) 1536
EXAMINER
WOLDEKIDAN, HIBRET ASNAKE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2634
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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 DO-YOUNG KIM, DAE-SEOK KIM, EUN-TAE WON,
TAE-HAN BAE, CHI-HONG CHO, and JAE-SEUNG SON
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115 1
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-16 and 21. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention relates to visible light communication
("VLC"), including receiving broadcasting data via visible light
communication using a transmission scheme and prohibiting uplink data
transmission when a broadcast mode is set. See Field of the Invention and
Abstract.
Of the claims on appeal, claims 1 and 13 are illustrative of the subject
matter of the appeal and are reproduced below with emphasis added to
highlight disputed limitations.
1. A method for providing a visible light communication
terminal with a visible light communication service in a time
division visible light communication system, the method
comprising the steps of:
receiving transmission mode announcement information
corresponding to one of various transmission schemes from a
communication control apparatus providing the visible light
communication service;
checlring the transmission mode announcement
information;
storing a result of the checking in the visible light
communication terminal; and
when the result of the checking indicates that a broadcast
mode is set, controlling a transmission of uplink data by the
visible light communication terminal.
13. A method for providing a communication control
apparatus with a visible light communication service in a time
division visible light communication system, the method
comprising the steps of:
transmitting broadcast mode announcement information
and broadcast period information to a visible light
communication terminal in order to prohibit uplink data
transmission during a broadcast service; and
transmitting broadcast data during a broadcast period.
2
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, and 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Oh et al. (US
2008/0094244 Al; Apr. 24, 2008) (hereinafter "Oh") and Jung et al. (US
200710157258 Al; July 5, 2007) (hereinafter "Jung"), collectively referred
to as the "first combination."
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 1-16 and 21under35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofNatarajan et al. (US
5,274,841; Dec. 28, 1993) (hereinafter "Natarajan") and Fujiwara (US
8,019,229 B2; Sept. 13, 2011), collectively referred to as the "second
combination."
(3) The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Oh, Jung, and Y okonaga et al.
(US 2009/027003l 1A .. l; Oct. 29, 2009) (hereinafter "Yokonaga").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner erred. In reaching our decision, we consider
all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We disagree with Appellants' arguments and we incorporate herein
and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner
in the May 7, 2013 Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-20) and (2) the reasons
and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2--4). We
incorporate such findings, reasons, and rebuttals herein by reference unless
3
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115
otherwise noted. We, however, highlight and address specific findings and
arguments below for emphasis.
(1) Receiving transmission mode announcement information
corresponding to one of various transmission schemes
Appellants argue the first combination, and Oh in particular, fails to
teach or suggest "receiving transmission mode announcement information
corresponding to one of various transmission schemes from a
communication control apparatus providing the visible light
communication service," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 5---6. In making this
contention, Appellants first assert what they contend the Examiner cited
portions of Oh teach. See App. Br. 6-7 (citing Oh i-fi-18 (asserting this
paragraph "merely relates to 'communication between visible light
communication devices ... performed via at least one of blinking or color
control of light signals'"), 26 (asserting this paragraph merely "discloses that
light is intermittently received, and a VLC receiver 'transmits information
regarding the instability of the established communication link"'), 28
(asserting this paragraph "describes a pulse signal generated by a pulse
generator and modulated by a modulator"), 31 (asserting this paragraph
merely "describes conversions of external light into an electric signal that is
demodulated 'into data suitable for optical wireless communication"'), 33
(asserting this paragraph merely "describes various steps shown in Fig. 3 of
Oh, including that, after a control signal is received, 'the VLC transmitter
212 emits the first color of light [ ... for a user to] determine that the status of
the VLC device that a communication link is being established"'), 37
(asserting this paragraph "describes emitting of a third color light signal that
indicates that the VLC device is out of the allowed communication link
4
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115
range"). Appellants then contend that these cited portions of Oh do not
teach this disputed limitation. See App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellants
also argue the Examiner ignores claim 1 's plain language of" one of various
transmission schemes." See Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner finds Oh teaches or suggests this disputed limitation.
See Ans. 2. The Examiner first finds Oh teaches visible light
communication can employ various data communication schemes. See Ans.
2 (citing Oh i-f 8 (teaching "visible light communication in general normally
employs data communication schemes"). The Examiner finds modulating a
light signal transmitted from one VLC module to another VLC module is a
scheme Oh teaches. See Ans. 2 (citing Oh i-fi-126, 28, Fig. 2 (232)). The
Examiner then concludes Oh's teaching of receiving information indicating
establishment of this communication link teaches claim 1 's "receiving
transmission mode announcement information corresponding to one of
various transmission schemes." See Ans. 2-3 (citing Oh i-f 3 7; Figs. 1, 2, 3
(304)).
We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Oh' s teaching of receiving information indicating
establishment of a communication link teaches this disputed limitation. See,
e.g., Oh i-fi-18, 33, 34 (emitting light colors to indicate link establishment and
current transmission status); Fig. 3. We find Oh's emitted light for link
establishment or current transmission status is within the broadest reasonable
interpretation of transmission mode announcement information and
corresponds to the transmission scheme, as discussed above.
We also agree with the Examiner that Oh teaches or suggests various
transmission schemes in accordance with the broadest reasonable
5
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115
interpretation of this phrase, including a blinking light scheme or a different
light colors scheme. See, e.g., Oh i-f 8 ("Visible light communication in
general normally employs data communication schemes using blinking light
signals and/or different colors light signals to facilitate the
communication."), 26 (teaching additional schemes instead based on sound
or vibration), 28; see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1331 (Fed. Cir.
2012) ("A reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses
beyond its primary purpose.") (Citing KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 418-21 (2007)). We also note that Appellants' Specification uses
the term "scheme" broadly. See, e.g., Specification 1, 11. 15-18; 7, 11. 18-21;
16, 11. 10-12.
(2) Checking the transmission mode announcement information
Appellants argue the second combination, and Natarajan in particular,
fails to teach or suggest "checking the transmission mode announcement
information," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 8-9. Appellants argue
Natarajan instead teaches checking messages for correctness rather than
checking the transmission mode announcement information. See App. Br.
8; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants argue Natarajan's "checking" is limited to
confirming receipt of a request, such as by returning a positive
acknowledgement message. See App. Br. 8 (citing Natarajan col. 11, 11. 65-
68, col. 8, 11. 26-30). In addition, Appellants argue Natarajan's teaching of a
broadcast mode "is merely an indication that transmission occurs in the
broadcast mode," rather than teaching this disputed limitation. See App. Br.
8 (citing Natarajan col. 8, 11. 64---67). Appellants also contend that additional
cited teachings of N ataraj an also fail to teach this disputed limitation. See
App. Br. 8-9 (citing Natarajan col. 9, 11. 20-23 (asserting this portion instead
6
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115
teaches broadcasting a control message to signify the end of the broadcast
mode); col. 8, 11. 47-50 (asserting this portion instead merely teaches
broadcasting a control message to stop uplink message transmissions from
new mobile units when they are not successful in sending data)). Lastly,
Appellants also argue the Examiner construes transmission mode
announcement information too broadly, allegedly to encompass any
broadcasted messages or information. See App. Br. 9 (citing Final Act. 2).
The Examiner finds Natarajan teaches or suggests this disputed
limitation. See Ans. 3. In making this finding, the Examiner first finds
Natarajan teaches transmission mode announcement information via its
teaching of control messages, which can include information for a mobile
station to stop or start uplink transmission. See Ans. 3 (citing Natarajan col.
11, 11. 55---68, Fig. la (12)). The Examiner then finds mobile stations check
control messages (i.e., transmission mode announcement information) upon
receipt, including checking for correctness. See Ans. 3 (citing Natarajan col.
11, 11. 65---68, Fig. 1 a (10) ). The Examiner concludes because a "received
control message is transmission mode announcement information which
instructs the mobile stations to STOP transmission or START transmission,
any checking taking place on the transmission mode announcement can be
considered as checking the transmission mode announcement." See Ans. 3.
The Examiner also finds the received control message has to be checked at
least to determine its content for the mobile stations to act upon (e.g., start or
stop uplink transmission) or respond to the message, and thus, teaches this
disputed limitation. See id. (citing Natarajan col. 11, 11. 65---68, Fig. la (10)).
We agree with the Examiner and find Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive. We agree Natarajan teaches transmission mode
7
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115
announcement information via its teaching of control messages, which can
include information for mobile stations to stop or start uplink transmission.
See Nataraja col. 11, 11. 55---68, Fig. la (12). We also agree with the
Examiner that the broadest reasonable interpretation of checking the
transmission mode announcement information, includes checking the
content of the control messages, including to determine whether to act (e.g.,
start or stop uplink transmission) or respond to (i.e., provide a positive
acknowledgement). See Natarajan col. 8, 11. 47-50; col. 8, 1. 65 to col. 9, 1.
2; col. 11, 11. 65---68; Fig. la (10)).
(3) When the result of the checking indicates broadcast mode
Appellants argue the second combination, and Natarajan in particular,
fails to teach or suggest "when the result of the checking indicates that a
broadcast mode is set, controlling a transmission of uplink data by the
visible light communication terminal," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-
11. Appellants argue Natarajan instead teaches "that uplink transmissions
are terminated after elapse of a predetermined amount of time, and that
messages are checked for correctness." App. Br. 10 (citing Natarajan col.
11, 11. 55---67; col. 8, 11. 47-50). Appellants also argue Fujiwara does not
cure this deficiency. See App. Br. 11 (citing Fujiwara col. 6, 11. 37--46,
Abstract, Fig. 7a).
The Examiner finds that the second combination, and Natarajan in
particular, teaches or suggests this disputed limitation. See Ans. 3--4; Final
Act. 6. As discussed above, the Examiner finds Natarajan teaches control
messages (i.e., transmission mode announcement information), which
control a mobile station to stop or start uplink transmission. See Ans. 3
(citing Nataraja col. 11, 11. 55---68, Fig. la (12)). The Examiner finds that
8
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115
Natarajan's teaching of controlling the transmission of uplink data by the
visible light communication terminal includes when the transmission mode
announcement information indicates broadcast mode is set. See Ans. 3--4
(citing Natarajan col. 8, 11. 47-50 ("[T]he header station 12 broadcasts a
control message 60 to stop uplink message transmissions from the
new mobile units."); col. 9, 11. 20-23 (teaching the header station 12
broadcasts a control message< EOB > 62 to signify the end of the broadcast
phase); see also Final Act. 6 (citing Natarajan col. 11, 11. 55-67, col. 8, 11.
47-50, Figs. la, le (teaching "when the received message is a broadcast
mode message, controlling for stopping the uplink transmission from the line
communication terminal which is the mobile station(! O)").
We agree with the Examiner and find Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive. In accordance with our above reasoning, we agree Natarajan
teaches (i) transmission mode announcement information (e.g., control
messages, which can include information for mobile stations to stop or start
uplink transmission) and (ii) controlling the transmission of uplink data (e.g.,
stopping such transmission) by the visible light communication terminal
when a broadcast mode is set. See Natarajan col. 8, 11. 47-50; col. 8, 1. 65 to
col. 9, 1. 2; col. 9, 11. 20-23; col. 11, 11. 65---68; Fig. la (10).
( 4) Prohibit uplink data transmission during a broadcast service
Appellants argue the second combination, and Natarajan in particular,
fails to teach or suggest "transmitting broadcast mode announcement
information and broadcast period information to a visible light
communication terminal in order to prohibit uplink data transmission during
a broadcast service," as recited in claim 13. See App. Br. 11-13. Further,
Appellants deny that the Examiner's cited portions ofNatarajan teach or
9
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115
suggest this disputed limitation. See id.; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants contend
"Natarajan [instead] merely describe[s] terminating, i.e., ceasing,
transmission, which differs from and fails to disclose or fairly suggest a
prohibition of uplink data transmission during a broadcast service." See
Reply Br. 7-8 (citing Natarajan col. 8, 11. 47---60; col. 11, 11. 19-28, 55---68).
The Examiner finds Natarajan teaches this disputed limitation. Ans.
4. Specifically, the Examiner finds Natarajan teaches a head station
broadcasts, during a broadcasting service, a control message which includes
a STOP command that prohibits uplink transmission by mobile stations. See
Ans. 4 (citing Natarajan col. 11, 11. 19-28, 55-68; col. 8, 11. 47---60, Fig. la)
(teaching "a header station broadcast a control message which includes
STOP transmission, the mobile stations stops or prohibits their uplink
transmission until a header station broadcast another control message which
includes START uplink transmission").
We agree with the Examiner and find Appellants' arguments
unpersuasive. In accordance with our above reasoning, we find Natarajan
teaches this disputed limitation. See Natarajan col. 8, 11. 47-50; col. 8, 1. 65
to col. 9, 1. 2; col. 9, 11. 20-23; col. 11, 11. 19-28, 65-68; Fig. la (10). We
find Natarajan teaches, inter alia, broadcasting control messages, which
include a STOP command, in order to prohibit uplink data transmission
during a broadcast service. See id. Furthermore, we disagree with
Appellants that Natarajan merely teaches ceasing transmission, and that such
differs from a prohibition of uplink data transmission during a broadcast
service. See Natarajan col. 8, 11. 47-50 (teaching broadcasting a STOP
control message "to stop uplink message transmissions"); col. 9, 11. 20-23
(teaching broadcasting a control message to signify the end of the broadcast
10
Appeal2014-005190
Application 12/626,115
phase); col. 11, 11. 19-28, 65---68 (teaching broadcasting a START control
message to initiate uplink transmission); see also In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d at
1331 ("A reference may be read for all that it teaches, including uses beyond
its primary purpose.").
CONCLUSION
Based on the above findings and reasoning, we sustain the Examiner's
rejections of claims 1 and 13. Our reasoning and findings above also apply
to the Examiner's rejections of the remaining claims on appeal for which
Appellants did not provide additional or separate arguments. Accordingly,
we also sustain the rejections as to these remaining claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-16 and 21.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
11