Ex Parte Dudai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2017

14291539 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 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.
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