Ex Parte Buckley et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 3, 201211287638 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2012) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ADRIAN BUCKLEY, GEORGE BALDWIN BUMILLER, and PAUL CARPENTER ____________ Appeal 2011-006106 Application 11/287,638 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JAMES R. HUGHES, ERIC S. FRAHM, and GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006106 Application 11/287,638 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of claims 62-88 (App. Br. 3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The Invention Exemplary claim 62 follows: 62. A network selection method for a user equipment (UE) device, the method comprising: gathering network information by the UE device; sending a message to a default generic access network controller (GANC) associated with a first public land mobile network (PLMN) and connected to the first PLMN via at least one of a first A interface and a first Gb interface, the message including at least one of the network information and a request for one or more PLMN services provided through a GANC, wherein the message is sent towards the default GANC via a Up interface; and receiving a response message from the default GANC via the Up interface, the response message including a list of one or more GANCs, each coupled to a corresponding PLMN via at least one of a corresponding A interface and a corresponding Gb interface. Claims 62-88 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gallagher (U.S. 2006/0079274 A1) in view of Hind (WO 2004/040931 A2) and McClure (WO 01/47316 A2) or Haumont (WO 03/058996 A1) (Ans. 4-17). Appeal 2011-006106 Application 11/287,638 3 ISSUES Based upon our review of the record, the dispositive issues before us are: (1) Can the claimed invention be distinguished from the prior art on the basis of the claim limitation of sending a message including “a request for one or more PLMN services provided through a GANC” or the claim limitation of receiving a “response message including a list of one or more GANCs” as recited in independent claim 62 and as similarly recited in independent claims 75 and 84? (2) Are Appellants’ arguments urging patentability predicated on non-functional descriptive material? ANALYSIS Appellants argue that independent claim 62 is not obvious because the combination of Gallagher, Hind, and McClure or Haumont does not teach or suggest sending a message that “includes a request for PLMN [Public Land Mobile Network] services” (App. Br. 14). Appellants also argue that the combination of prior art references does not teach or suggest “receiving a response message that includes a list of one or more network nodes” (id. at 22). But we conclude that Appellants’ arguments urging patentability are predicated on non-functional descriptive material, i.e., the content of messages that are sent and received. The message content is not executable code that changes the function of a machine. The informational content of non-functional descriptive material is not entitled to weight in the Appeal 2011-006106 Application 11/287,638 4 patentability analysis. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583 (Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not claim merely the information content of a memory. . . Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident in a database.”). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2006-1003, aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006)); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). This reasoning is applicable here. Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim 62, and independent claims 75 and 84 which fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of the dependent claims (i.e., claims 63-74, 76-83, and 85-88) because Appellants did not set forth any separate patentability arguments for the dependent claims (see App. Br. 31). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 62-88 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 tkl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation