Ex Parte Kaippallimalil

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 27, 2014

11745881 (P.T.A.B. May. 27, 2014)

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. 11/745,881 05/08/2007 John Kaippallimalil 4194-08601 1590 89394 7590 05/28/2014 Futurewei Technologies, Inc. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. 5601 Granite Parkway Suite 500 Plano, TX 75024 EXAMINER HSU, ALPUS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOHN KAIPPALLIMALIL ____________________ Appeal 2011-010058 Application 11/745,881 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-010058 Application 11/745,881 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-3, 6-14, and 18-25. Claims 4, 5, and 15-17 were canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. The claims are directed to system for distributed architecture for multicast access control. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method comprising: providing a system architecture having a service stratum and a transport stratum; establishing session control in the service stratum; responsive to establishing a session, communicating access permissions from the service stratum to the transport stratum; and responsive to selection of a channel at a user equipment, communicating access permissions of the channel only within the transport stratum, wherein the transport stratum comprises the user equipment and a resource and admission control device, and wherein the service stratum comprises a serving call session control function and a home subscriber server, REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Huang US 2005/0213606 Al Sep. 29, 2005 Appeal 2011-010058 Application 11/745,881 3 Murray US 2006/0233171 Al Oct. 19, 2006 Russ US 2004/0083485 Al Apr. 29, 2004 Slobodin US 2003/0072429 Al Apr. 17, 2003 Orava US 2003/0177267 Al Sep. 18, 2003 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1-3, 8-10, and 18-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Murray and also in view of Russ. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Murray [and Russ], as applied to claims 1-3 and 8-10 above, and further in view of Slobodin. Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Murray and Russ, as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of Orava. ANALYSIS With respect to claims 1-3, 6-14, and 18·25, we select claim 1 as the representative claim for the group. (App. Br. 7-12) Appellant maintains that "Russ's subscriber authorizations (access permissions) are continuously or periodically transmitted from the service stratum to the transport stratum, e.g., both before and after the user makes his channel selection." (App. Br. 9). Appellant further maintains that "Russ cannot discontinue transmission of the smartcard commands (including the subscriber authorization commands) in response to selection of a channel at a user equipment . . . .” (App. Br. 11) (emphasis omitted). Appellant further contends that “Russ’s Appeal 2011-010058 Application 11/745,881 4 access permissions are continuously or periodically transmitted from the service stratum to the transport stratum both before and after the user makes his channel selection, and are not communicated only with in the transport stratum in response to selection of a channel at a user equipment." (App. Br. 12) (emphasis omitted). Appellant further contends that “claims 1 and 18 explicitly claim a change in communication of the access permissions from inter-stratum (i.e. from the service stratum to the transport stratum) prior to the selection of a channel to in intra--stratum (i.e., only within the transport stratum subsequent to user selection of a channel." (App. Br. 12) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner generally maintains that the argued claim limitations are not specific enough where: [A]ppellant intends appellant's claim to cut off, entirely, all communications of access permissions from the service stratum to the transport stratum after user selection, whereas Russ will continuously transport access permissions from the service stratum to the transport stratum even though Russ' subscriber authorization commands include a comparison only within the transport stratum. Examiner respectfully disagrees, because examiner believes that claim 1 does not contain language that cuts off, entirely, all communications of access permissions form the service stratum to the transport stratum after user selection. (Ans. 16). The Examiner further maintains that "[t]he inability of Russ to discontinue inter-strata communications is not relevant in reading on the language of the claim due to the claim's broad recitation." (Ans. 17). We agree with the Examiner and further find that Appellant has not responded to the Examiner's clarification by filing a reply brief. Appeal 2011-010058 Application 11/745,881 5 The Examiner further maintains: The reasons set forth in examiner's preceding remarks clarify examiner's position; examiner did not ignore the language, examiner simply disagrees on its broadest reasonable interpretation. As examiner reads the disputed portion of the claim, the intra-stratum communications are only mandated for the particular access permissions communicated in response to a user selection. (Ans. 17-18). We agree with the Examiner. Therefore, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s rejection, and we sustain the rejection of representative claim 1. With respect to claims 19 and 24, we select claim 19 as the representative claim for the group. Appellant repeats the language of the claim and maintain that the Murray reference does not disclose the invention as claimed. The Examiner responds: Referring to Fig. 1 of Murray, Node 130 is an access node because it provides access to network 110. An interconnect border gateway function is taught because nodes 130 and 140 are interconnected and border different local networks. A media resource function server corresponds to Murray's Multicast Source 150, which sends out TV channel content, and is thus a media source providing media resources (see Murray, para. [0070] for additional support). As appellant failed to substantiate appellant's position as to why Murray does not teach these features, examiner is unable to understand appellant's position. (Ans. 18). Again, we agree with the Examiner that at least one of the claimed alternatives recited is met by the Murray reference and further find that Appellant has not responded to the Examiner's clarification by filing a Appeal 2011-010058 Application 11/745,881 6 reply brief. Therefore, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's reasoned conclusion of obviousness of representative claim 19. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-3, 6-14, and 18-25 based on obviousness. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-3, 6-14, and 18-25 are sustained. 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). AFFIRMED ELD