Ex Parte PARK et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 28, 2019

14818776 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/818,776 08/05/2015 68103 7590 01/30/2019 Jefferson IP Law, LLP 1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420 Washington, DC 20036 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Kyung-Mo PARK 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. 0201-0572-1 1070 EXAMINER HAIEM, SEAN N ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2422 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/30/2019 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 Exparte KYUNG-MO PARK, SUNG-OH HWANG, and JAE-YEON SONG 1 Appeal2018-006814 Application 14/818,776 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1--4, all the pending claims in the present application. Claim 5 is canceled (see Claims Appendix). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We REVERSE. The present invention relates generally to transmitting multimedia data in a hybrid network (see Spec., Abstract). 1 Appellants name Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. as the real party in interest (App. Br. 2). Appeal2018-006814 Application 14/818, 77 6 Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method for receiving a packet in a multimedia system, the method comprising: receiving, from a transmitting entity, the packet including a header region and a payload; identifying information included in the header region; and decoding data included in the payload based on the information, wherein the information comprises: data unit type information including a value indicating whether the data is a data unit of a complete type, an indicator used to distinguish media data from another, a flag indicating whether the data includes more than one data unit, and payload type information indicating if the payload includes one or more control messages. Appellants appeal the following rejections: RI. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki (US 8,098,388 B2, Jan. 17, 2012), Zhang (US 2008/0285501 Al, Nov. 20, 2008), Lee (US 2011/0299443 Al, Dec. 8, 2011), and Ylanen (US 2010/0329161 Al, Dec. 30, 2010); and R2. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Suzuki, Zhang, Lee, Ylanen, and Jorgensen (US 2002/0099854 Al, July 25, 2002). We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 2 Appeal2018-006814 Application 14/818, 77 6 ANALYSIS Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Ylanen teaches or suggests payload type information, in the header region, indicating if the payload includes one or more control messages, as set forth in claim 1? Appellants contend that "the Message ID [ in Ylanen] only represents the ID of the message packet 900, but does not represent whether the data payload of the message packet 900 includes control messages" (App. Br. 9 ( emphasis omitted)), i.e., the Message ID does not indicate if the payload includes control messages. We agree with Appellants. Here, the Examiner finds that under the "BRI interpretation the 'payload type information' is not restricted to a flag, so the message ID ... show[s] the existence of the control message" (Ans. 4) and in Ylanen paragraph [91] "'the data payload of packet 900 may include, at least Message ID information ... ' [and] 'control messages' is one type of 'activity pattern information' which is in the payload" (id. at 4--5 (emphasis omitted)). In other words, the Examiner's position rests on Ylanen's Message ID being a control message and because it is located in the payload, it represents that the payload actually includes a control message. However, the Examiner seems to ignore that claim 1 requires that the "payload type information" is in the information included in the header region (see claim 1 ), not the payload portion. Therefore, at best the Examiner has only directed our attention to arguably control messages in the payload. As such, we agree with Appellants that "the Examiner fails to appreciate that Appellant[s'] claimed 'payload type information' is claimed as being comprised by information included in a header of a packet" (Reply Br. 6). In other words, even if Ylanen's "Message ID" is associated with "control messages" in the payload, the Examiner is not showing such 3 Appeal2018-006814 Application 14/818, 77 6 information in the header portion of the packet, as required by sole independent claim 1. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner's finding that Ylanen teaches "payload type information" in the header region, given that the Examiner is only relying on information present in the payload portion. The Examiner also has not found that any of the other references of record teach this feature. Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 1--4. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1--4 is reversed. REVERSED 4