Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2017

14113984 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 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.
14/113,984 10/25/2013 Xiangyang Li LUTZ 201702US01 8913
48116 7590 06/27/2017
FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT
EXAMINER
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor ONAMUTI, GBEMILEKE J
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2017 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 XIANGYANG LI and YIGANG CAI
Appeal 2017-000896
Application 14/113,9841
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—13, which are all of the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants’ Brief (“App. Br.”) identifies Lucent and Alcatel-Lucent USA
Inc., as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-000896
Application 14/113,984
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to controlling quality of service, policy
management, and online charging control of a guest user in a
telecommunications network in such a way as to allow a network operator
and third party application provider to jointly provide services. Spec. 2,11.
11—18. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
1. A method of aiding controlling quality of service
and/or policy and charging control of a user subscribing to a third
party application service, in an online charging system in a
telecommunication network, the method comprising:
sending a user subscription request to a third party
application provider that provides the third party application
service, the request being used to request user subscription
information from the third party application provider;
obtaining a user subscription response according to a
feedback from the third party application provider, the user
subscription response comprising the information in responsive
of the user subscription request; and
providing the user subscription response to a first module.
App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
matter:
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Meiser
Brouard
Dunmire
US 2006/0010236 A1 Jan. 12, 2006
US 2011/0067085 A1 Mar. 17, 2011
US 2012/0030019 A1 Feb. 2, 2012
2
Appeal 2017-000896
Application 14/113,984
REJECTIONS
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as
being indefinite. Final Act. 5.2
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 6.3
Claims 1—3 and 6—13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dunmire and Brouard. Final Act. 7.
Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dunmire, Brouard, and Meiser. Final Act. 17.
ISSUES
First Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding Dunmire teaches or
suggests “sending a user subscription request. . . used to request user
subscription information from the third party application provider,” as
recited in claim 1?
Second Issue'. Has the Examiner erred in finding Dunmire teaches or
suggests “determining whether a user subscribes to a third party application
service,” as recited in claim 7?
2 Appellants present no argument asserting Examiner error with respect to
this ground of rejection. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection of
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite.
3 Appellants present no argument asserting Examiner error with respect to
this ground of rejection. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the rejection of
claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the
requirement for written description.
3
Appeal 2017-000896
Application 14/113,984
ANALYSIS
First Issue
Claim 1 recites the limitation “sending a user subscription request to a
third party application provider that provides the third party application
service, the request being used to request user subscription information from
the third party application provider.” In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner
finds Dunmire teaches this limitation in two ways, the mappings for which
we summarize below. Final Act. 7; Advisory Act. 2; Ans. 19—20 (citing
Dunmire Figure 3, 25, 52, and 54).
First, the Examiner finds Figure 3 of Dunmire shows an aggregator
sending a request message (user subscription request) to a service delivery
hub (third party application provider). Advisory Act. 2. The Examiner finds
the service delivery hub corresponds to the recited “third party application
provider that provides the third party application service,” and that the
request message sent to the service delivery hub includes a MSISDN number
used to identify the network to which the account associated with the
MSISDN is subscribed, such as, for example, the enabler (130) located in
Mexico instead of the enablers located in Colombia and Peru. Ans. 19
(citing Dunmire Fig. 3). Second, the Examiner finds Dunmire’s hub
includes a recommendation enabler (142) which accesses user preferences.
According to the Examiner, the recommendation enabler is a third party
application provider that receives a request, and the user preferences are user
subscription information. Final Act. 7 (citing Dunmire 52, 54).
With respect to the Examiner’s first mapping, Appellants argue
“[tjhere is no teaching or suggestion in Dunmire that the MSISDN includes
subscription information or that the MSISDN is sent as a request for
4
Appeal 2017-000896
Application 14/113,984
subscription information.” App. Br. 6. Appellants further argue the cited
portions of Dunmire are deficient because “[tjhere is no mention of a request
for user subscription information or any other request related to whether a
user is subscribed.” App. Br. 8. According to Appellants, “the cited passage
relates to providing user interest information to a third party application
provider, and not requesting or obtaining subscription information from the
third party application provider.” App. Br. 8. Addressing the Examiner’s
second mapping, i.e., that the customer’s registered interests correspond to
the recited “user subscription information,” Appellants contend that “a
subscriber’s registered interest is still just an interest of the subscriber, and
does not include subscription information.” Reply Br. 3. We are not
persuaded by these arguments.
As described in Dunmire, a request is sent to the HUB (12), which is a
third party application provider because it provides application services to
parties in addition to application services provided by the ASP from which
the HUB receives the request. Dunmire 126 (“[t]he service delivery hub 12
provides management functions”). The request includes an MSISDN, which
indicates to the HUB that the identity of the correct network enabler for the
subscriber associated with the MSISDN is being sought. Dunmire 125
(“The service delivery hub 12 will interpret the MSISDN and determine that
it is destined for enabler 130.”) The identity of the network enabler is “user
subscription information,” as the network enabler indicates the network to
which the user associated with the MSISDN subscribes. More particularly,
the sought-after identity of the correct enabler is information about the
subscription of the user, namely, the country in which the user associated
with the MSISDN is subscribed. Dunmire 125. Thus, we agree with the
5
Appeal 2017-000896
Application 14/113,984
Examiner’s finding that Dunmire teaches “the request being used to request
user subscription information from the third party application provider,” and
we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
Second Issue
Appellants argue separately for patentability of independent claim 7.
Claim 7 recites:
7. A method in a first module of interacting with an
online charging system in a telecommunication network,
comprising:
determining whether a user subscribes to a third party
application service;
if the user subscribes to the third party application service,
sending a user profile request to the online charging system, the
user profile request being used to request the online charging
system to provide the user profile information of the user; and
obtaining a user subscription response from the online
charging system, the user subscription response comprising the
information in responsive of the user subscription request.
App. Br. 18 (Claims Appendix). Appellants contend the Examiner has erred
because Dunmire does not teach or suggest “determining whether a user
subscribes to a third party application service.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7.
In rejecting claim 7, the Examiner finds Dunmire teaches establishing
a VPN tunnel to a specific enabler based on an MSISDN (such as the
enabler 130 located in Mexico), and in doing so makes a determination as to
whether the user associated with the MSISDN is a subscriber on that
network. Ans. 21 (citing Dunmire 125). According to the Examiner, the
selection of a VPN tunnel amounts to “determining whether a user
subscribes to a third party application service.” Id. The Examiner further
finds the disputed limitation is taught by Dunmire’s disclosure that “video
game developers may offer a gaming system to its customers on a storefront
6
Appeal 2017-000896
Application 14/113,984
accessible through the portal 42 of the service delivery platform.” Ans. 22
(citing Dunmire 139).
Addressing the Examiner’s findings with respect to the establishment
of a VPN tunnel using the MSISDN, Appellants argue the MSISDN is
merely used to “determine a destination of the service request message (e.g.,
Mexico and not Columbia or Peru).” App. Br. 9. Appellants further argue
the cited passage regarding video game developers relates only to fee
splitting between a network and an application service provider. App. Br. 9.
Appellants further argue “[tjhere is no mention of contractual terms, let
alone of a subscription, between the customer and either of the network
operator or the ASP.” Reply Br. 7. We are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that a person of ordinary skill
would have understood from Dunmire’s description that “video game
developers may offer a gaming system to its customers on a storefront
accessible through the portal 42 of the service delivery platform,” the
customers are subscribers to the portal. Otherwise, customers would not be
able to obtain the products and services. Moreover, we agree with the
Examiner that, in selecting a specific enabler for creation of a VPN tunnel,
Dunmire teaches or suggests “determining whether a user subscribes to a
third party application service,” as a person of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that a determination must first be made as to whether the user is
a subscriber on that particular network (which is a third party application
service). We further note that if the MSISDN did not allow for a
determination of whether the user is a subscriber, then no selection of a
7
Appeal 2017-000896
Application 14/113,984
specific enabler could be made. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 7 as obvious over Dunmire and Brouard.
Remaining Claims
Appellants present arguments for independent claims 12 and 13 which
substantially repeat those discussed above. App. Br. 10-12 (claim 12); App.
Br. 12—13 (claim 13). For the same reasons discussed above, we are not
persuaded by these arguments. Appellants also present arguments for
dependent claims 4 and 5. App. Br. 13—14. However, these arguments are
limited to recitations of the claim language in each claim, along with a
statement that these claims are allowable based on their dependency from
claim 1. Because Appellants do not present separate arguments for
patentability of claims 4 and 5, these claims fall along with claim 1. Finally,
Appellants do not present separate arguments for any of the remaining
dependent claims, which also fall with their respective independent claims.
DECISION
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
We summarily affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—13 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
8
Appeal 2017-000896
Application 14/113,984
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
9