Ex Parte Felske et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 14, 2012

11585476 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte KENT FELSKE, ABEL DASYLVA, DELFIN MONTUNO, GUYVES ACHTARI, and ERIC BERNIER ____________________ Appeal 2010-006927 Application 11/585,476 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006927 Application 11/585,476 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claim 8 has been cancelled. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates to an apparatus, a system, and a method that provides for control of call session handoffs across heterogeneous communication networks. (Spec. 1, [0003]). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim(s) Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A system for facilitating handoffs between heterogeneous communication networks for a user device, the system comprising: a first network having a first domain technology; a second network having a second domain technology different from the first domain technology; a contextual information server, the contextual information server storing user device characteristic contextual elements and user device operating environment contextual elements; and a handoff decision function module, the handoff decision function module evaluating at least one of the user device characteristic contextual elements and at least one of the user device operating environment contextual elements to determine whether to handoff user device communications from the first network to the second network. Appeal 2010-006927 Application 11/585,476 3 References An US 2007/0076664 A1 Apr. 5, 2007 Ovadia US 2007/0115899 A1 May 24, 2007 Olvera-Hernandez US 2006/0227745 A1 Oct. 12, 2006 Rejections (1) Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by An. (2) Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over An and Ovadia. (3) Claims 13 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over An and Olvera-Hernandez. We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 102(e): claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, and 15-20 Appellants argue their invention is not anticipated by An because An does not disclose “the handoff decision function module evaluating at least one of the user device characteristic contextual elements and at least one of the user device operating environment contextual elements to determine whether to handoff user device communications from the first network to the Appeal 2010-006927 Application 11/585,476 4 second network” as recited in claim 1 (emphasis added) and commensurately recited in claims 7 and 15 (App. Br. 4-5; Reply Br. 4). Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner confuses An’s use of device characteristic contextual elements before the handoff (which determine if handoff should occur) with the use of device characteristic contextual elements after handoff (App. Br. 5). Instead, according to Appellants, An describes a system that uses only network or operating environment contextual elements to determine if handoff is required and performs analysis of the user device characteristics after handoff to select a target cell and to evaluate the selected target cell (App. Br. 5-6). Thus, Appellants contend, An’s mobile device characteristic contextual elements are not used in determining handoff parameters or whether handoff occurs (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 5-6). Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding An discloses “the handoff decision function module evaluating at least one of the user device characteristic contextual elements and at least one of the user device operating environment contextual elements to determine whether to hand-off user device communications from the first network to the second network” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 7 and 15? ANALYSIS We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and adopt them as our own (Ans. 3-7 and 13-16). We emphasize the following. Appeal 2010-006927 Application 11/585,476 5 Based on Appellants’ arguments, it appears Appellants would have us read limitations into the claims which are not recited. Appellants assert that since the claims recite “both parameters (user device characteristic contextual elements and user device operating environment contextual elements) are used to determine whether to handoff user device communications from the first network to the second network,” the implication is that “both parameters must be considered prior to the handoff decision and not simply prior to handoff” (Reply Br. 5 (emphasis omitted)). However, we are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner that whether to hand-off user device communications from the first to the second network occurs in steps 804, 810, and 812 (Ans. 14-15). Indeed, An discloses that at processing block 812 “[i]f the target call does not satisfy policy requirements, process 800 ends. Otherwise, processing logic executes a handoff….” (An ¶ [0076]). Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding An discloses “the handoff decision function module evaluating at least one of the user device characteristic contextual elements and at least one of the user device operating environment contextual elements to determine whether to handoff user device communications from the first network to the second network,” as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in claims 7 and 15. Appellants did not present separate arguments for dependent claims 4-6, 9- 12, and 16-20, and thus these claims fall with their respective independent claims. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) for anticipation by An. Appeal 2010-006927 Application 11/585,476 6 ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 2, 3, 13, and 14 Appellants assert their invention as recited in claims 2 and 3 is not obvious over An and Ovadia because Ovadia does not cure the deficiencies of An, and that their invention as recited in claims 13 and 14 is not obvious over An and Olvera-Hernandez because Olvera-Hernandez does not cure the deficiencies of An (App. Br. 8-9). We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments regarding An, as set forth above in Issue 1. Accordingly, the Examiner did not err in finding the combination of An and Ovadia teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 2 and 3 and finding the combination of An and Olvera-Hernandez teaches or suggests the invention as recited in claims 13 and 14. It follows that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over An and Ovadia and claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over An and Olvera- Hernandez. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, and 15-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by An is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over An and Ovadia is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over An and Olvera-Hernandez is affirmed. Appeal 2010-006927 Application 11/585,476 7 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) (2011). AFFIRMED msc