Ex Parte Gamaley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 25, 2017

13102338 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 25, 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.
13/102,338 05/06/2011 Vladimir Gamaley IL920100127US1 6861
45112 7590 08/29/2017
Knn7ler T aw firm in
EXAMINER
50 W. Broadway
10th Floor
NGUYEN, STEVEN C
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84101 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/29/2017 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):
docket @ kunzlerlaw .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLADIMIR GAMALEY, GILINACHUM,
and GIL PERZY
Appeal 2017-005688
Application 13/102,3381
Technology Center 2400
Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and
JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—16, and 18—22, which are all of the
claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corp. Br. 3.
2 Claims 3, 10, and 17 have been cancelled. Id. at 1.
Appeal 2017-005688
Application 13/102,338
INVENTION
Appellants’ application relates to providing information to networked
entities regarding the status of other networked entities. Spec. 1. Claim 1 is
representative of the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium
storing computer-readable program code executable by a
processor, the computer-readable program code comprising:
a SIP server locator configured to randomly select a
Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) subscription dialog that is
maintained by a SIP client and determine the identity of a SIP
server that maintains the SIP subscription dialog; and
a liveliness tester configured to periodically send to the
SIP server a SIP RESUBSCRIBE message corresponding to the
SIP subscription dialog, and in the absence of a response to the
SIP RE-SUBSCRIBE message that indicates that the re­
subscription request was successful, send multiple SIP RE­
SUBSCRIBE messages corresponding to multiple SIP
subscription dialogs maintained by the SIP server, and determine
if a predefined re-subscription success rate of the multiple SIP
RE-SUBSCRIBE messages is met, wherein the predefined re­
subscription success rate is met if a specified percentage of the
send multiple SIP RE-SUBSCRIBE messages to the multiple
SIP subscription dialogs are responded to successfully.
REJECTIONS
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA), second
paragraph, as indefinite.
Claims 1,2, 5—9, 12—16, and 19—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Kumarasamy et al. (US
2012/0016998 Al; publ. Jan. 19. 2012) (“Kumarasamy”), Noel et al. (US
2
Appeal 2017-005688
Application 13/102,338
2013/0088989 Al; publ. April 11, 2013) (“Noel”), Balasaygun et al. (US
2011/0122863 Al; publ. May 26, 2011) (“Balasaygun”), and Potts et al. (US
2011/0075653 Al; publ. Mar. 31, 2011) (“Potts”).
Claims 4, 11, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Kumarasamy, Noel, Balasaygun, Potts
and Duigenan et al. (US 2004/0250283 Al; publ. Dec. 9, 2004)
(“Duigenan”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we 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 set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5—9, 12—16, and 19—22 under § 103(a)
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because the combination of
Kumarasamy, Noel, Balasaygun, and Potts does not teach or suggest the
limitation:
wherein the predefined re-subscription success rate is met if a
specified percentage of the send multiple SIP RE-SUBSCRIBE
messages to the multiple SIP subscription dialogs are responded
to successfully,
as recited in claim 1. Br. 12. Appellants argue that Potts does not teach
engaging multiple SIP subscription dialogs, but instead is limited to
reestablishment success for one dialog. Id. at 12—13.
3
Appeal 2017-005688
Application 13/102,338
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner found Potts
teaches a process for re-establishing a session after a session has failed.
Ans. 15. The Examiner further found Balasaygun’s single SIP user agent
1404, which contains multiple dialogs 1412a, 1412b, 1412c, teaches or
suggests the disputed “multiple SIP subscription dialogs,” recited in claim 1.
Id. at 17 (citing Balasaygun 1170, Fig. 14). Appellants have not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s findings. Appellants did not file a
Reply Brief, and arguments not made are waived.
For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of cited references teaches or suggests the disputed
limitations of claim 1. Accordingly we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of representative independent claim 1, as well as the 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of grouped independent claims 8, 15, and 22. See Br. 12.
We also sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14,
16, 20, and 21, for which Appellants made no separate, substantive
arguments. Id. at 12, 13.3
Regarding dependent claim 5, Appellants acknowledge the prior art
teaches SIP dialogs being regularly cancelled, but contend the cited portions
of the references do not teach canceling all SIP dialogs maintained by a SIP
server if the predefined re-subscription success rate is not met, as claim 5
requires. Id. at 13.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. In the Answer, the
Examiner found Kumarasamy teaches sending a BYE message to
3 See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“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.”).
4
Appeal 2017-005688
Application 13/102,338
terminating gateways for inactive sessions, and Balasaygun teaches a session
termination state in which the PIE ("Preservation Interval Expired") timer
expires. Ans. 20. The Examiner further found Potts, in combination with
Kumarasamy and Balasaygun, teaches the limitation “cancels all SIP
subscription dialogs maintained by the SIP server for the SIP client if the
predefined resubscription success rate is not met.” Id. Appellants have not
presented persuasive arguments or objective evidence addressing the
combined teachings of Kumarasamy, Balasaygun, and Potts. Instead,
Appellants attack the prior art references individually. See Br. 13—14; In re
Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) (“The test for obviousness is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to those having ordinary
skill in the art.”).
With regard to claims 5, 12, and 19, Appellants argue Duigenan does
not teach “terminating (canceling) all subscribers (SIP) sessions maintained
by the SIP server if the predefined re-subscription success rate is not met.”
Br. 15. The Examiner, however, did not rely on the Duigenan reference in
rejecting claims 5, 12, and 19. Final Act. 3. Therefore, Appellants’
arguments are not persuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 5,
12, and 19.
Rejections of Claims 4, 11, and 18 under § 103(a)
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 11, and
18 because Duigenan does not teach the limitation “determine if a
predefined resubscription success rate of the multiple SIP RE-SUB SCRIBE
messages is met, wherein the predefined re-subscription success rate is met
5
Appeal 2017-005688
Application 13/102,338
if a specified percentage of the send multiple SIP RE-SUBSCRIBE
messages to the multiple SIP subscription dialogs are responded to
successfully.” Br. 15.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because the
Examiner relied on the combination of Kumarasamy, Noel, Balasaygun, and
Potts, not Duigenan, as teaching or suggesting that limitation. Final Act. 3—
7; Ans. 3—7. Thus, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4,
11, and 18.
Rejection of Claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
In the Appeal Brief, Appellants do not present arguments regarding
the indefiniteness rejection of claim 22. Arguments not made are waived,
and we pro forma sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, rejection of claim 22. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 2, 4—9, 11—
16, and 18-22.
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