Ex Parte YeDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 30, 201311731680 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 30, 2013) 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. 11/731,680 03/30/2007 Sang-Wook Ye 1235-269 9160 66547 7590 08/30/2013 THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C. 290 Broadhollow Road Suite 210E Melville, NY 11747 EXAMINER LAI, DANIEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2013 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 SANG-WOOK YE ____________ Appeal 2011-007914 Application 11/731,680 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENARY III, and CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 2-6, 11-15, 18, and 19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appeal 2011-007914 Application 11/731,680 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to “an apparatus and method for transmitting multimedia messages in a mobile communication terminal” (Spec. 1:13-15). Independent claim 18, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal. 18. A method of processing a Multimedia Message Service (MMS) message in a mobile communication system, comprising the steps of: transmitting, by a receiving MMS server, a MMS notification message to a receiving terminal, the MMS notification message for notifying a receipt of an MMS message, determining, by the receiving terminal, whether the corresponding MMS message includes media files that can be processed using the MMS notification message, requesting the MMS server to retransmit the MMS notification message to another receiver when the MMS message includes media files that cannot be processed, and requesting a transmission of the MMS message when the MMS message can be processed, and retransmitting, by the receiving MMS server, the MMS notification message to the other receiver when the request of the receiving terminal to retransmit the MMS notification message to the other receiver is received, or transforming and transmitting the media files included in the MMS message when the request to transmit the MMS message is received. REFERENCES and REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 2, 11, 18, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rooke (U.S. Pat. App. Pub. No. 2002/0044634 A1) and 3GPP TS 23.140 V6.9.0 (2005-03), 3rd Generation Appeal 2011-007914 Application 11/731,680 3 Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Terminals; Multimedia Messaging Service (MMS); Functional description; Stage 2 (Release 6), 29- 69, (2005) (hereinafter “3GPP”). The Examiner rejected claims 3-6 and 12-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of Rooke, 3GPP, and Aho (Int’l Pub. No. WO 01/33782 A1). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Rooke discloses all of the claimed elements except it “does not explicitly disclose requesting the MMS server to retransmit the MMS notification message to another receiver and transforming and transmitting the media files included in the MMS message when the request to retransmit the MMS message is received.” (Ans. 5). However, the Examiner finds 3GPP teaches this limitation (id.). Appellant contends the Examiner is incorrect in finding the combination of Rooke and 3GPP teach or suggest “requesting the MMS server to retransmit the MMS notification message to another receiver ‘when the MMS message includes media files that cannot be processed’” as recited in independent claim 18 and similarly recited in claim 19 (emphasis omitted) (App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2). Appellant contends Rooke “merely teaches that an MMS Forward Req may be replied to by the MS, but [is] not based on whether the MMS message includes media files that cannot be processed,” as claimed (App. Br. 6). We agree. We also do not agree with the Examiner’s assertion 3GPP discloses “requesting the MMS server to retransmit the MMS notification message to another receiver and transforming and transmitting the media files included Appeal 2011-007914 Application 11/731,680 4 in the MMS message when the request to transmit the MMS message is received” (Ans. 5). We do not find this limitation is taught or suggested in either 3GPP, page 31, section 7.1.3.1 or page 69, Table 8 (Sender Address) as the Examiner asserts (Ans. 5). Additionally, the Examiner has not responded to Appellant’s contention in the Appeal Brief regarding 3GPP (App. Br. 6) in the Response to Argument portion of the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 8-9). For these reasons, we conclude the Examiner erred in finding claims 18 and 19 obvious over the combination of Rooke and 3GPP and claims 2-6, and 11-15, which depend therefrom (App. Br. 7-8). DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2-6, 11-15, 18, and 19 is reversed. REVERSED llw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation