Ex Parte Dudai et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 201714291539 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2017) 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. 14/291,539 05/30/2014 SAGI DUDAI 5524-254 5134 96355 7590 12/18/2017 NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. / Vonage 901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR ARLINGTON, VA 22203 EXAMINER LIU, JUNG-JEN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/18/2017 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): PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAGI DUDAI and BARUCH STERMAN Appeal 2017-007919 Application 14/291,5391 Technology Center 2400 Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. HUME, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1—6, 8—22, and 24—32, which are all claims pending in the application. Claims 7, 23, and 33 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Vonage Business Inc., App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-007919 Application 14/291,539 STATEMENT OF THE CASE2 The Invention Appellants' disclosed embodiments and claimed invention relate to network preselection for mobile telephony device. See Title. Exemplary Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal (emphasis added to contested limitation): 1. Telephonic equipment comprising a pre-selection processor configured: upon receipt of an indication of actual or anticipated movement of a wireless telephony device, to pre-select a wireless network for wireless communication with the wireless telephony device for a pre-selected potential destination location of the movement; and to dynamically predict the potential destination location of the movement based on historical activity of at least one or more of other wireless telephony devices in respect to an origination location of the movement. Prior Art The Examiner relies upon the following prior art as evidence in rejecting the claims on appeal: Wang et al. ("Wang") US 2004/0192341 A1 Sept. 30, 2004 Shibasaki et al. ("Shibasaki") US 2009/0268721 Al Oct. 29, 2009 2 Our decision relies upon Appellants' Appeal Brief ("App. Br.," filed Nov. 16, 2016); Reply Brief ("Reply Br.," filed Apr. 28, 2017); Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed Mar. 8, 2017); Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed Feb. 23, 2016); and the original Specification ("Spec.," filed May 30, 2015). 2 Appeal 2017-007919 Application 14/291,539 Rejection on Appeal Claims 1—6, 8—22, and 24—32 stand rejected under (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103as being unpatentable over the combination of Wang and Shibasaki. Final Act. 6. CLAIM GROUPING Based on Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 19-23), we decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1—6, 8—22, and 24—32 on the basis of representative claim l.3 ISSUE Appellants argue (App. Br. 19—23) the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of Wang and Shibasaki is in error. These contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the cited prior art combination teaches or suggests a "telephonic equipment. . . configured ... to dynamically predict the potential destination location of the movement based on historical activity of at least one or more of other wireless telephony devices in respect to an origination location of the movement," as recited in claim 1? 3 "Notwithstanding any other provision of this paragraph, the failure of appellant to separately argue claims which appellant has grouped together shall constitute a waiver of any argument that the Board must consider the patentability of any grouped claim separately." 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In addition, when Appellants do not separately argue the patentability of dependent claims, the claims stand or fall with the claims from which they depend. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986). 3 Appeal 2017-007919 Application 14/291,539 ANALYSIS In reaching this decision, we consider all evidence presented and all arguments actually made by Appellants. We do not consider arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs, and we deem any such arguments waived. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We disagree with Appellants' arguments with respect to claim 1 and, unless otherwise noted, we incorporate by reference herein and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the reasons and rebuttals set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellant's arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding claim 1 for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend the Examiner erred because: Wang's 1[0068] reference to plural mobile stations concerns resource allocation rather than prediction of path per se, and particularly resource allocation taking into consideration the predicted paths of all mobile stations travelling in a network cluster, regardless of whether the predicted path has the same origination point or not. App. Br. 19. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments because: (1) Appellants are arguing limitations not recited in claim 1, and (2) we find Appellants' argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. Appellants argue "Wang does not teach or suggest making a path prediction from a particular origination point based on historical activity of plural mobile stations starting at same origination point." Id. (emphasis added). However, claim 1 recites "in respect to an origination location of 4 Appeal 2017-007919 Application 14/291,539 the movement." (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that an origination point is not required to be the same origination point. Ans. 26. Furthermore, the Examiner finds Wang's flow diagram (Fig. 7) teaches or at least suggests the disputed limitation "dynamically predict the potential destination location of the movement based on historical activity of at least one or more of other wireless telephony devices in respect to an origination location of the movement." Ans. 26—28. We agree with the Examiner's findings, because we find Steps 104—114, describing continuous updating of mobile phone route history and making future path predictions, teach or at least suggest the disputed limitation. Wang, Fig. 7, 66—70. Appellants further argue "nothing about the Wang node tree, or any other aspect of Wang pertaining to path selection, relates to historical activity of other mobile stations for predicting a path for one mobile station." App. Br. 20 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner finds Wang's node tree is for recording the historical location and time-stamping of mobile stations' movements. Ans. 29. We agree with the Examiner's findings because Wang's node tree captures and stores the cell phones' time-stamped history. Wang, Fig. 5, |59. Accordingly, based upon the findings above, on this record, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited prior art combination to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of claim 1, nor do we find error in the Examiner's resulting legal conclusion of obviousness. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of representative independent claim 1, and grouped claims 2—6, 8—22, and 24—32 which fall therewith. See Claim Grouping, supra. 5 Appeal 2017-007919 Application 14/291,539 REPLY BRIEF To the extent Appellants may advance new arguments in the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2—5) not in response to a shift in the Examiner's position in the Answer, we note arguments raised in a Reply Brief that were not raised in the Appeal Brief or are not responsive to arguments raised in the Examiner's Answer will not be considered except for good cause (see 37 CE.R. § 41.41(b)(2)), which Appellants have not shown. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err with respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 1—6, 8—22, and 24—32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103over the cited prior art combination of record, and we sustain the rejection. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1—6, 8—22, and 24—32 under (AIA) 35 U.S.C. § 103. 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation