Ex Parte OH et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 10, 2016

11758896 (P.T.A.B. May. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111758,896 0610612007 23373 7590 05/12/2016 SUGHRUE MION, PLLC 2100 PENNSYLVANIA A VENUE, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20037 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Seung-jae OH 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. Q97382 5297 EXAMINER ASHRAF, WASEEM ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2455 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2016 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): PPROCESSING@SUGHRUE.COM sughrue@sughrue.com USPTO@sughrue.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SEUNG-JAE OH, SE-HEE HAN, WON-SEOK KWON, JOO- YEOL LEE, and DONG-SHIN JUNG Appeal2014-004639 1 Application 11/758,896 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges. BAER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 23, 25 and 26, which are all the pending claims. See App. Br. 18. Oral arguments were heard on May 5, 2016. A transcript of the hearing will be placed in the record in due course. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellants identify Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-004639 Application 11/758,896 BACKGROUND A. The Invention Appellants' invention is directed to "synchronizing content directory service (CDS) objects of a universal plug and play (UPnP) media servers." Abstract. Independent claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed elements: 1. A method of synchronizing, in a universal plug and play (UPnP) network, a first content directory service (CDS) of a first device with a second CDS of a second device, the first device pre-storing a plurality of relationship identifiers (IDs) and pre-storing, corresponding to each relationship ID, synchronization relationship information indicating the second device as a partner device for synchronization, one or more objects that are to be synchronized with the second CDS, and a synchronization policy to be applied to the synchronization, the method comprising: receiving by the first device a control message including a relationship ID corresponding to one of the pre- stored synchronization relationship information from a control point ( CP) in the UPnP network; and in response to the control message, the first device performs synchronization directly with the second device, of the one or more synchronization objects using the synchronization policy according to synchronization relationship information indicated by the received relationship ID. B. The Rejections on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3, 4, 7, 8, 10, 11, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over White et al. (US 2005/0055352 Al, Mar. 10, 2005) in view of Shah et al. (US 2005/0027755 Al, Feb. 3, 2005). Ans. 2. 2 Appeal2014-004639 Application 11/758,896 The Examiner rejects claims 5 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over White, Shah, and Stirbu et al. (US 2006/0041596 Al, Feb. 23, 2006). Ans. 2. The Examiner rejects claims 6, 13, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over White, Shah, and Peng (US 6,928,467 B2, iss. Aug. 9, 2005). Ans. 2. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the combination of White and Shah fails to teach or suggest a "first device" that "pre-stor[ es] a plurality of relationship identifiers" along with corresponding relationship/policy information for each ID, and "receiv[ es]. .. a control message including a relationship ID" as claim 1 requires. See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellants argue the Examiner erred by mapping Shah's sync controller to both the claimed first device that pre-stores relationship IDs, and the claimed control point that triggers synchronization by sending a control message with a relationship ID to the first device. Id. We are persuaded by these arguments. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, or claims 3-8, 10-13, 23, 25, or 26, all of which either depend from claim 1 or recite similar limitations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3-8, 10-13, 23, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). REVERSED 3