Ex Parte Cai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 13, 2017

12171629 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 13, 2017)

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.
12/171,629 07/11/2008 Yigang Cai LUTZ 2 00590 3290
48116 7590 03/15/2017
FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT
EXAMINER
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor BIBBEE, CHAYCE R
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2624
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/15/2017 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):
docketing @ faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YIGANG CAI and ALOK SHARMA
Appeal 2015-001791
Application 12/171,629
Technology Center 2600
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20, all the pending claims in the
present application. See Claim Appendix. We have jurisdiction over the
appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
The present invention relates generally to providing short message
service (SMS) delivery to recipients migrated across different technology
networks. See Abstract.
Appeal 2015-001791
Application 12/171,629
Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving a short message service (SMS) text message from a
sender at a short message service center (SMSC), wherein the SMS
text message includes a destination number for a recipient of the SMS
text message;
sending a first routing request to a database in a first network
for SMS routing information for the destination number via a first
signal transfer point (STP);
receiving from the first STP a message indicating whether the
destination number is a migrated or a non-migrated destination
number based on data received from the first database;
receiving an error indication at the SMSC if the destination
number and the first routing request are for different communication
networks; and
sending a second routing request to a second database in a
second network for SMS routing information for the destination
number via a second STP.
Appellants appeal the following rejections:
Rl. Claims 1—5, 9-12, and 15—18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Smith (US 7,013,156 B2, Mar. 14,
2006) and Calatrava-Requena (US 6,748,229 Bl, June 8, 2004);
R2. Claims 6, 8, 13, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith, Calatrava-Requena, and Rekieta (US
6,098,076, Aug. 1, 2000); and
R3. Claims 7, 14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Smith, Calatrava-Requena, Rekieta, and Fridman
(US 2008/0130663 Al, June 5, 2008).
2
Appeal 2015-001791
Application 12/171,629
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3—5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Smith and Calatrava-
Requena collectively teach or suggest a message indicating whether the
destination number is a migrated or a non-migrated destination number, as
set forth in claim 1?
Appellants contend that “Smith does not disclose the claimed message
indicating whether the destination number is a migrated or non-migrated
destination number based on data received from the first database” (App. Br.
10). Appellants further contend that “Smith contains no specific disclosure
of number portability (or migration) anywhere. Smith simply mentions the
scenarios of inter-technology roaming between two different types of
networks” (App. Br. 11).
In response, the Examiner finds that in Smith “upon receipt of an SRI
from an ITU GSM carrier, the Virtual Carrier Network’s HLR . . . responds
with an SRI ACK or appropriate error message depending upon whether the
message is deliverable or not, thus receiving a message indicating whether
the destination number is migrated or non-migrated” (Ans. 10). We agree
with the Examiner.
Specifically, Smith discloses “a model to receive SMS messages from
a GSM network by an Intermediary for further transmission to ANSI carriers
. . . If the intended recipient is serviced by an ANSI carrier, this SRI call
usually fails because of incompatibility of GSM and ANSI SS7 networks”
(Smith 3:38—50). In other words, Smith discloses that usually if the SMS
message attempts inter-technology roaming (i.e., from one network to a
different network) a failure message generally follows. The Examiner finds,
3
Appeal 2015-001791
Application 12/171,629
and we agree, that Smith’s failure awareness reasonably indicates whether
the destination number is migrated or non-migrated. Consistent with
Appellants’ Specification, Smith teaches a failure when a destination
number is ported into a different network, indicating a migration of the
destination number (see Spec. 138). Thus, we find unavailing Appellants’
contention that “Smith does not disclose the claimed message indicating
whether the destination number is a migrated or non-migrated destination
number based on data received from the first database” (see App. Br. 10),
given the aforementioned consistent disclosures in Smith and Appellants’
Specification.
Appellants further contend that “in Calatrava-Requena, routing
information is obtained by the IMSC through the HLR — not the second
STP” (App. Br. 12).
Here, the Examiner “is interpreting the SMS-GMSC as disclosed in
col. 12 lines 39-44 of Calatrava-Requena as a first STP . . . thus [] the
[ISMC] can read upon a second STP” (Ans. 10). We agree with the
Examiner.
Although Appellants’ contention highlights that Calatrava-Requena’s
“routing information is obtained by the [ISMC] through the HLR” (see App.
Br. 12), we point out that claim 1 recites, inter alia, “sending a second
routing request to a second database in a second network ... via a second
STP” (see claim 1). In other words, Appellants appear to be arguing the
“receipt” of routing information at the ISMC (i.e., STP) as opposed to the
sending of a routing request via a second STP, as required by claim 1. For at
least this reason, we find Appellants’ contention unavailing, because
4
Appeal 2015-001791
Application 12/171,629
Appellants fail to rebut why Calatrava-Requena’s ISMC is not a second STP
that sends a routing request, as proffered by the Examiner.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 9 and 15 rely on the same arguments as for claim 1, and Appellants
do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 3—5, 11, 12, 17, and
18. See App. Br. 9-13. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 3—5, 9, 11, 12, 15, 17, and 18.
Claims 2, 10, and 16
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Calatrava-Requena
teaches updating at least one destination number migration record in the first
database, as set forth in claim 2?
Appellants contend that “Calatrava-Requena stores the subscriber’s
roaming record on a transient basis ... As soon as subscriber moves . . .
roaming record entry is deleted from the database. . . . On the other hand,
claim 2 recites . . . the destination number migration record is maintained on
a permanent basis” (App. Br. 14). First, we note, as a matter of claim
construction, claim 2 does not necessarily require maintaining the
destination number migration record on a permanent basis, as argued by
Appellants. Instead, claim 2 merely requires, inter alia, updating at least
one destination number migration record in the first database via the SMSC
(see claim 2). We find that even if Calatrava-Requena maintains the
subscriber’s roaming record on a transient basis, as argued by Appellants,
such a transient update still reads on the claimed “updating at least one
destination number migration record . . . ,” as set forth in claim 2. Thus,
5
Appeal 2015-001791
Application 12/171,629
Appellants’ aforementioned contention relating to permanency is not
commensurate with the scope of claim 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Appellants’ arguments regarding the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 10 and 16 rely on the same arguments as for claim 2. See App. Br.
13—14. We, therefore, also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10 and
16.
Claims 6—8, 13, 14, 19, and 20
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that Rekieta teaches or
suggests redefining the destination number range . . . when more than a
predefined number of subscribers . . . have migrated to a different network,
as set forth in claim 6?
Appellants contend that “[wjhile Rekieta uses the terms ‘migration of
information’ and ‘range of PSNs,’ [Ajppellants could find no specific
disclosure in Rekieta of SMS management of migration number ranges,” as
set forth in claim 6 (App. Br. 19).
Although the Examiner finds that Rekieta “discloses adding a new
SCP pair and then migrating information from one SCP pair to another, thus
by adding a new pair the ranges are being redefined” (Ans. 12), we find that
the Examiner fails to explain how Rekieta’s adding of a Service control
Point (SCP) pair is equivalent to looking at when more than a pre-defined
number of subscribers in a destination number range have migrated to a
different network, as required by claim 6. Thus, we agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has not shown the specifics of claim 6 in Rekieta (nor in
any of the other cited prior art).
6
Appeal 2015-001791
Application 12/171,629
In view of the above discussion, we are of the opinion that the
proposed combination of references set forth by the Examiner does not
support the obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 6.
We, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 6, 13,
and 19, or the rejection of claims 7, 8, 14, and 20 which are dependent
thereon.
DECISION
We reverse the § 103(a) rejections of claims 6—8, 13, 14, 19, and 20.
We affirm the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1—5, 9—12, and
15-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7