Ex Parte Lalseta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 1, 2016

13343457 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/343,457 01/04/2012 76614 7590 Terry W. Kramer, Esq. Kramer & Amado, P.C. 330 John Carlyle Street 3rd Floor Alexandria, VA 22314 04/05/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Sachin J. Lalseta 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. ALC 3764 1023 EXAMINER ZOUBAIR, NOURA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2434 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/05/2016 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): mail@krameramado.com ipsnarocp@alcatel-lucent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SACHIN J. LALSETA, HAIQING H. MA, LUI CHU YEUNG, and ROBERT A. MANN Appeal2014-005062 Application 13/343,457 Technology Center 2400 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JON M. JURGOV AN, and AARON W, MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-005062 Application 13/343,457 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and formatting added): 1. A method performed by a network device for responding to a received set of policy and charging control (PCC) rules, the method compnsmg: [A.] receiving the set of PCC rules at the network device from a partner device, wherein each PCC rule of the set of PCC rules has a respective PCC rule identifier; [B.] determining that the set of PCC rules includes an unauthorized PCC rule, wherein the unauthorized PCC rule fails an authorization; [C.] determining that the set of PCC rules includes an authorized PCC rule, wherein the authorized PCC rule passes the authorization; [D.] generating an unauthorized rules list including the PCC rule identifier of the unauthorized PCC rule; [E.] generating an authorized rules list including the PCC rule identifier of the authorized PCC rule; [F.] transmitting the unauthorized rules list and the authorized rules list to the partner device. 2 Appeal2014-005062 Application 13/343,457 E'xaminer;s Rejection The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as being anticipated by De La Cruz et al. (US 2012/0314632 Al; Dec. 13, 2012). Appellants ' Contentions 1 1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1- 20 because: The Examiner has improperly equated a QoS indication as the claimed PCC rule. In the office action, the Examiner provides an explanation equating Cruz's "information on available resources" as the claimed "authorized PCC rule" (office action, pp. 7-8). The Examiner's reasoning is improper because Cruz does not specifically transmit which rules were authorized, but rather a Quality of Service (QoS) that could be authorized. While a PCC rule may include QoS information, QoS information alone is not enough to make an indication of a PCC Rule literally present in Cruz. Simply put, QoS information does not necessitate a PCC Rule. App Br. 6-7. 2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1- 20 because: Cruz further cannot disclose PCC rule identifiers because the QoS is not provided in the form of a PCC rule. More plainly, one cannot have a PCC rule identifier to label something other than a PCC rule. App Br. 8. 1 The contentions of error we discuss are dispositive. Appellants' other contentions of error are not discussed further herein. 3 Appeal2014-005062 Application 13/343,457 3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1- 20 because: The office action cites Cruz as allegedly disclosing an authorized rules list and points to paragraph [0037] which indicates that "the report includ[ es] information on the available resources." This falls short of disclosing a listing including an indication of an authorized PCC rule. App Br. 8. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 as being anticipated because De La Cruz fails to disclose the argued limitations? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred. As to above contention 1; we disagree with Appellants' conclusion. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. The Examiner correctly points out that De La Cruz teaches that "PCC rules include QoS parameters." Ans. 7. Further as to the invention, Appellants explicitly state, "[ v ]arious embodiments are described wherein the authorization includes determining whether a quality of service (QoS) requested for a PCC rule is allowable." Spec. i-f 14. As to above contention 2, we disagree with Appellants' conclusion. We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. See Answer 8-9. Further, contrary to Appellants' argument that one cannot have a PCC rule identifier to label something other than a PCC rule, whereas in De La Cruz a QoS rule is derived from a PCC rule (i-f 18 and i-f 63), an artisan would 4 Appeal2014-005062 Application 13/343,457 recognize that the identifier of the PCC rule is equally applicable to the QoS rule. As to above contention 3, we agree with Appellants' conclusion that De La Cruz's report including information on the available resources falls short of disclosing "an unauthorized rules list including the PCC rule identifier of the unauthorized PCC rule" or "an authorized rules list including the PCC rule identifier of the authorized PCC rule," as required by claim 1. CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e). (2) On this record, claims 1-20 have not been shown to be unpatentable. DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed. REVERSED 5