Ex Parte Cai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 2016

13408604 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/408,604 02/29/2012 50525 7590 03/01/2016 DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP 1526 SPRUCE STREET SUITE 302 BOULDER, CO 80302 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Yigang Cai 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. CAI 135-38-US-CNT 1374 EXAMINER AJIBADE AKONAI, OLUMIDE ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2641 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/01/2016 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): docketing@dbflaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte YIGANG CAI and CHUNG-ZIN LIU Appeal2014-003455 Application 13/408,604 Technology Center 2600 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, MELISSA A. RAAP ALA, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. Appeal2014-003455 Application 13/408,604 TI'-JVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to performing online charging in a proxy online charging system of a visited network that is serving roaming users. Spec 1:11-13. Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A system comprising: a proxy online charging system (OCS) implemented in a visited network that provides service to a roaming user for a sess10n; the proxy OCS is configured to determine a rating for the session, and to grant a quota of service units to at least one network element in the visited network based on the rating. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 9, 10, 12-15, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Grayson (US 2008/0046963 Al; published Feb. 21, 2008) and Zhang (US 2007/0115861 Al; published May 24, 2007). Claims 3 and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Grayson, Zhang, and Kowarsh (US 2004/0132449 Al; published July 8, 2004). Claims 8, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Grayson, Zhang, and Tornkvist (US 2009/0163172 Al; published June 25, 2009). 2 Appeal2014-003455 Application 13/408,604 ISSUE Appellants' contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Grayson and Zhang teaches or suggests "the proxy OCS is configured to determine a rating for the session, and to grant a quota of service units to at least one network element in the visited network based on the rating" ("proxy OCS" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellants contend that Grayson and Zhang do not teach the "proxy OCS" limitation because both references describe charging processes that are performed in the home network of a subscriber and not in a proxy OCS of a visited network. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 4--7. Specifically, Appellants argue "the proxy OCS 26 in Grayson merely acts as an intermediary between the home OCS 16 and V-GW 30 in the visited network" and "[t]here is no indication whatsoever in Grayson that the proxy OCS 26 actually provides credit control for the roaming session." App. Br. 7. Appellants further argue that although Zhang describes an element of a visited network (V-CRF) that is able to modify a charging rule selected by the home network, one of ordinary skill in the art would not interpret Zhang as suggesting that the V-CRF determines a rating for the session, and grants a quota of service units to the network element in the visited network based on the rating. Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded by these arguments. We agree with and adopt as our own the findings, reasons, and conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We note the following primarily for emphasis. 3 Appeal2014-003455 Application 13/408,604 The Examiner finds, and we agree, Grayson teaches a proxy online charging server (OCS) implemented in a visited network, which determines a rating for the session and grants a quota of service units based on the rating. Final Act. 3--4 (citing e.g., Grayson i-fi-f 18-19, 36-37, 70); Ans. 2-3 (citing Grayson Fig. 1 ). Although Appellants argue the proxy OCS 26 in Grayson merely acts as an intermediary and obtains the credit information (rating and quota) from the home OCS 16 (App. Br. 7 (citing e.g., Grayson i169)), we observe that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "determining" does not preclude the visited OCS from obtaining the information from the home OCS as taught by Grayson. In fact, such an interpretation is consistent with Appellants' Specification, which describes "[t]he proxy OCS transmits an online charging request message to the home OCS requesting charging information for the roaming user." Spec. 4. Moreover, we agree with the Examiner that Zhang teaches a network element in a visited network (V-CRF (Visited Charging Rule Function) 404) that acts as a proxy for the home CRF and creates new charging rules (determines a rating for a session) and grants service based on the corresponding charging rule. Final Act. 4 (citing Zhang i-fi-143, 59---61, Fig. 4); Ans. 3--4. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Grayson and Zhang teaches or suggests the "proxy OCS" limitation. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner is using hindsight knowledge to formulate the rejection. App. Br. 1 O; Reply Br. 7. The combination is not based on hindsight reasoning, but on an articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings. See Ans. 5. Furthermore, for the reasons stated above, we disagree with Appellants (App. Br. 10) that 4 Appeal2014-003455 Application 13/408,604 one of ordinary skill in the art would not consider the combination of Grayson and Zhang as teaching the "proxy OCS" limitation. Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of: (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 9 and 17, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments made for claim 1 (App. Br. 10-11); and (3) dependent claims 2- 8, 10-16, and 18-20, which are not separately argued (App. Br. 11). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 5