Ex Parte Lei et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 31, 2017

13505049 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 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. 13/505,049 07/10/2012 Zhengxiong Lei LUTZ 201438US01 9681 48116 7590 04/04/2017 FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT EXAMINER 1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor SEFCHECK, GREGORY B The Halle Building Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/04/2017 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): docketing @ faysharpe.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ZHENGXIONG LEI, XUEQIANG YAN, ZHIYUAN HU, and YONGGEN WAN Appeal 2017-001131 Application 13/505,049 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 16—19. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1—3, 5, 7, 9, 10, 12, 14, and 16—19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chin et al. (US 8,718,043 B2, issued May 6, 2014) and Bae et al. (US 8,565,772 B2, issued Oct. 22, 2013). Final Act. 2— 10. Appeal 2017-001131 Application 13/505,049 Claims 4 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Chin, Bae, and Wohlert et al. (US 8,179,861 B2, issued May 15, 2012). Final Act. 11. We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “techniques of shortening signaling delay of IMS service continuity (ISC) session transfer procedure.” Spec. 1:5-6. Claims 1,9, 16, and 19 are independent. Independent claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below (key contested limitations italicized): 1. A method for shortening signaling delay of IMS service continuity ISC session transfer procedure, comprising: - receiving, by a first network element, a session setup request message and forwarding said session setup request message to a second network element according to initial filtering criteria iFC, - deciding, by said second network element, if the condition for anchoring a media path in a media anchor point is met, and if yes, then instructing said media anchor point to assign respective media endpoints for a local terminal and a remote terminal, - assigning, by said media anchor point, respective media endpoints for said local terminal and remote terminal, connecting said media endpoints together and sending to said second network element a first response message with session description protocol information of said media endpoints, - terminating, by said second network element, a sub session with said local terminal according to said session description protocol information, and initiating creation of a sub-session with said remote terminal, - after said remote terminal having acknowledged, sending, by said second network element, a second response 2 Appeal 2017-001131 Application 13/505,049 message with session description protocol information of the media endpoint of said local terminal to said local terminal via said first network element, and wherein, when said ISC session transfer is being performed, said method also comprises: - sending, by said second network element, a first message with session description protocol information of a target transfer-in access leg to said media anchor point, upon reception of a handover request message, - replacing, by said media anchor point, a source transfer-out access leg by said target transfer-in access leg, and acknowledging said second network element. ANALYSIS The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-3,5,7,9,10,12,14, and 16-19 over Chin and Bae The Examiner finds Chin and Bae teach all limitations of claim 1. Final Act. 2-4. The Examiner finds Chin teaches most limitations of claim 1, except for the second response message “with session description protocol information of the media endpoint of said local terminal” and wherein, when said ISC session transfer is being performed, said method also comprises: - sending, by said second network element, a first message with session description protocol information of a target transfer- in access leg to said media anchor point, upon reception of a handover request message, - replacing, by said media anchor point, a source transfer- out access leg by said target transfer-in access leg, and acknowledging said second network element, which the Examiner finds is taught by Bae. Final Act. 4 (citing Bae 11:10— 36, Fig. 4C, Fig. 5 (steps 514—518, 524—526), and Fig. 6 (steps 606, 622, 624, 626, 628)). The Examiner reasons: 3 Appeal 2017-001131 Application 13/505,049 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Chin with the various messages, including session description information, and replacing the header of INVITE messages responsive to a handover request, as shown by Bae, thereby enabling efficient handover between CS and LTE domain for a single radio terminal. Final Act. 4. In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner further explains: “Bae is shown to incorporate the connectivity from the MGCF/MGW via an SAE Anchor 114 [], thereby illustrating utilization of a ‘media anchor point’ as claimed, after the forwarding of the INVITE to the receiver via CSCF, as cited by Applicant.” Ans. 12 (citing Bae 11:35—38). Appellants present, among other arguments, the following principal argument with respect to Bae: In particular, the Examiner cites to Figure 6, steps 606, 624, 626, of Bae as allegedly disclosing the claimed feature of replacing, by said media anchor point, a source transfer-out access leg by said target transfer-in access leg, and acknowledging said second network element. (Office Action, page 4). In reviewing the cited portions of Bae, however, it is apparent that in steps 622 and 624, the Application Server 123 simply forwards the INVITE request to the receiver 150 via the S-CSCF 122. (Bae, column 11, lines 25-27). And in step 626, the receiver 150 sends a 200 OK message to the S-CSCF 122 in response to the INVITE message. (Bae, column 11, lines 32-35). App. Br. 8. The claimed media anchor point is not specifically disclosed in the secondary citation to Bae. That is, Bae simply refers to an SAE Anchor 114, which does not perform the same functions as the media anchor point of the present application. More particularly, there is no specific disclosure in Bae of the SAE Anchor 114 replacing a source transfer-out access leg by the target transfer-in access leg. Bae simply states that the SAE 4 Appeal 2017-001131 Application 13/505,049 Anchor 114 is used to connect the new VoIP session to the receiver 150 from the MGCF/MGW of the call manager. App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 4—5. Appellants’ argument persuades us that the Examiner erred in finding Bae teaches the disputed limitation: “replacing, by said media anchor point, a source transfer-out access leg by said target transfer-in access leg, and acknowledging said second network element,” as recited in claim 1 for the reasons stated in Appellants’ principal argument, above, with respect to Bae. That is, neither the cited portion of Bae nor Bae’s SAE Anchor 114 teaches or suggests the disputed limitation of claim 1. To the extent the Examiner finds (see Ans. 12) Bae teaches utilization of a media anchor point, the Examiner does not set forth sufficient explanation as to how Bae teaches the disputed limitation: “replacing, by said media anchor point, a source transfer-out access leg by said target transfer-in access leg, and acknowledging said second network element.” We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, or of claims 2, 3, 5, and 7, which depend from claim 1. With respect to independent claims 9, 16, and 19, Appellants reiterate the same arguments presented against claim 1. For the same reasons discussed, we also do not sustain the rejections of claims 9, 16, and 19, as well as claims 10, 12, 14, 17, and 18,which variously depend from claims 9 and 16. 5 Appeal 2017-001131 Application 13/505,049 The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4 and 11 over Chin, Bae, and Wohlert Claims 4 and 11 depend from claims 1 and 9, respectively. The Examiner does not find Wohlert cures the deficiencies of Chin and Bae discussed above when addressing claims 1 and 9. See Final Act. 11. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 11. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—5, 7, 9-12, 14, and 161— 19 is reversed. REVERSED 1 In the event of further prosecution, we recommend the Examiner consider rejecting independent claim 16 (i) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, for reciting a single means claim subject to an undue breadth. In re Hyatt, 708 F.2d 712, 714-715, 218 USPQ 195, 197 (Fed. Cir. 1983), and (ii) under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for being indefinite as to the relevancy of (a) a source transfer-out access leg and (b) a target transfer-in access leg in the context of sending messages between a network element and another network element, as well as to how a signaling delay of IMS service continuity (ISC) session transfer procedure can be shortened. 6