Ex Parte Nagai et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 22, 201410553385 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2014) 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. 10/553,385 10/19/2005 Takahiro Nagai 074782-0023 1179 7590 01/22/2014 Michael E. Fogarty, Esq. McDERMOTT WILL & EMERY LLP 600 13th Street, NW Washington, DC 20005-3096 EXAMINER MEANS, JAREN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2447 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/22/2014 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 TAKAHIRO NAGAI, SHINJI SASAKI, and YOSHIKI KUNO _____________ Appeal 2011-007008 Application 10/553,385 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before, JEFFREY T. SMITH, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-007008 Application 10/553,385 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1 through 20. We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed to a server which is designed to transmit, receive and share multimedia information between a plurality of terminal devices that are connected together over a network. Page 7 of Appellants’ Specification. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below: 1. A server for use in a system that is designed to transmit, receive and share multimedia information between a plurality of terminal devices that are connected together over a network, the plurality of terminal devices including a first terminal device and a second terminal device, the server comprising: a network control device; a memory storing a management table for managing identifiers to identify the terminal devices and network addresses of the terminal devices on the network; a server receiving unit configured to receive a request including an identifier from the first terminal device through the network control device; a processing unit configured to acquire a network address of the first terminal device upon receiving the request, and to acquire a network address of the second terminal device by referring to the identifier included in the request and the management table; and a server transmitting unit configured to send the network address of the second terminal device to the first terminal device through the network control device when the first terminal device retains the multimedia information, or to send the network address of the first terminal device to the second terminal device when the second terminal device retains the multimedia information, Appeal 2011-007008 Application 10/553,385 3 wherein the multimedia information is transmitted, received and shared between the first and second terminal devices by referring to the network addresses provided. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 6, 9, 11, 12, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Enoki (US 5,873,085, Feb. 16, 1999) in view of Lui (Siu Man Lui & Sai Ho Kwok, Interoperability of Peer-To-Peer File Sharing Protocols, ACM SIGecom Exchanges, Vol. 3, No.3, pages 25-33 (Aug. 2002)), and Goodman (US 2003/0177246 A1, Sep. 18, 2003). Answer 5-17.1 The Examiner has rejected claims 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Enoki, Lui, Goodman, and Yang (Beverly Yang & Hector Garcia-Molina, Comparing Hybrid Peer-to Peer Systems, Proc. 27th VLDB Conference, pages 1-10 (2001)). Answer 17-24. The Examiner has rejected claims 5 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Enoki, Lui, Goodman, and Mandato (US 2001/0025280 A1, Sep. 27, 2001). Answer 24-26. ISSUE Appellants’ arguments on pages 10 through 11 of the Appeal Brief directed to the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 present us with 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated August 2, 2010, Reply Brief dated January 10, 2011, and the Examiner’s Answer mailed on November 9, 2010. Appeal 2011-007008 Application 10/553,385 4 the issue: did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Enoki, Lui , and Goodman teaches a server transmitting unit, configured to send the network address of the second terminal device to the first terminal device through the network control device when the first terminal device retains the multimedia information, or to send the network address of the first terminal device to the second terminal device when the second terminal device retains the multimedia information? Appellants’ arguments directed to independent claim 11 present us the same issue. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Enoki, Lui , and Goodman teaches a server transmitting unit, configured to send the network address of the second terminal device to the first terminal device through the network control device when the first terminal device retains the multimedia information, or to send the network address of the first terminal device to the second terminal device when the second terminal device retains the multimedia information. Appellants argue that Goodman’s system is such that each client announces itself and as such does not teach sending the network address of a client to the other clients. App. Br. 10. Appellants argue that the claimed device is directed to a push system and not a pull type system as taught by Goodman. App. Br. 11. Appeal 2011-007008 Application 10/553,385 5 We are not persuaded of error; the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each of Appellants’ arguments on pages 27 through 32 of the Answer. We have reviewed the evidence cited by the Examiner and the Examiner’s rationale to support the finding that the claims are obvious. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusions that the independent claims do not recite a push system and are not so limited. Further, we concur with the Examiners’ finding that Goodman’s Search and Get request involves sending network address as claimed. Thus, Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 20. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 20 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation