Ex Parte Linder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

13122345 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 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.
13/122,345 05/06/2011 Jia Linder 0111-039/P26366 7911
113648 7590 06/22/2017
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404-7999
EXAMINER
MAK, PETER K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2017 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
eofficeaction @ appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JIA LINDER and ANTONIO CAMPESINO ROBLES
Appeal 2017-004140
Application 13/122,3451
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, 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—12. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) as the real
party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
Appeal 2017-004140
Application 13/122,345
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to performing
group management in a communication network in which a network node
receives from a requesting node a request to monitor a group. (Abstract.)
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal:
1. A method of group management performed by a network
node in a communication network, the method comprising:
receiving a request from a requesting node to monitor a
group comprising a plurality of group members, the request
including at least one criterion to be monitored;
monitoring the group members to determine when at least
one of the group members fulfils one of the at least one criterion;
and
sending, to the requesting node, a notification message
including an identity of one of the at least one group members
fulfilling the at least one criterion and an identity of the one of
the at least one criterion fulfilled.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1—6 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being
anticipated by Ballette et al. (EP 1921825 Al; pub. May 14, 2008)
(hereinafter “Ballette”). Final Act. 4.
The Examiner rejected claims 7—12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ballette in view of Matsumoto (US 2007/0076698 Al;
pub. Apr. 5, 2007). Final Act. 7.
2
Appeal 2017-004140
Application 13/122,345
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief presents the following
issues:2
Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ballette discloses
the independent claim 1 limitations:
monitoring the group members to determine when at least
one of the group members fulfils one of the at least one criterion;
and
sending, to the requesting node, a notification message
including an identity of one of the at least one group members
fulfilling the at least one criterion and an identity of the one of
the at least one criterion fulfilled
and the similar limitations recited in independent claims 7 and 9. (App. Br.
6-7, 9-11.)
Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ballette discloses
the dependent claim 4 limitation “the notification message is sent prior to a
session being established, and includes the identities of all group members
fulfilling the criterion.” (App. Br. 8.)
Issue Three: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Ballette discloses
the dependent claim 6 limitation:
the notification message includes further criterion fulfilment
information comprising at least one of:
location information used to determine a change in a
group member’s status;
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Substitute Appeal Brief (filed June 29, 2016)
(herein, “App. Br.”); the Reply Brief (filed Jan. 13, 2017); the Final Office
Action (mailed Oct. 20, 2015); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Nov. 14,
2016) for the respective details.
3
Appeal 2017-004140
Application 13/122,345
presence information used to determine a change in a
group member’s status;
a number of group members in the group fulfilling the
criterion;
a reason for a change in a group member’s status;
a timestamp of when a change to a group member’s
status occurred; and
whether the one of the group members was found using
dynamic information or static information.
(App. Br. 8-9.)
Issue Four. Whether the Examiner erred in combining Ballette and
Matsumoto in the rejection of independent claims 7 and 9. (App. Br. 9—10.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments,
and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—13)
and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 2—7).
We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner, and
emphasize the following.
First Issue
In finding Ballette discloses the claim limitations at issue, the
Examiner relies on the disclosure in Ballette of device 10 subscribing itself
as a watcher and sending a subscribe request to Group Management entity,
which then monitors the group. After device 20 indicates it wishes to join
and device 10 consents, device 20 fulfills the criterion for membership and
4
Appeal 2017-004140
Application 13/122,345
its status is changed from pending to active. (Ans. 5; Ballette Fig 2, || 41,
54, 55-57, 70.)
Appellants first argue that because “the Examiner maps the claimed
criterion on group membership,” the rejection leads to a contradiction in
which “if the group members are the subject of the monitoring, a non-group
member that requests to join in is NOT a monitored group member.” (Reply
Br. 1,2.) We are not persuaded by this argument. In the Examiner’s
analysis, the claimed “group members” encompass all of Ballette’s users that
receive the initial query to subscribe to a new group (designated “group x” in
Ballette Fig. 2). Those group members that affirmatively respond and are
authorized then belong to “group x.” (Ballette Fig. 2; | 57.)
Appellants further argue “the Examiner’s position [is] that Ballette’s
device 10 is both the requesting node and the network node performing the
claimed method” and additionally “neither Ballette’s device 10 nor
Ballette’s group management entity 30 explicitly or inherently monitors
group 40’s members.” (Reply Br. 2.) We are not persuaded. The
Examiner’s analysis clearly indicates that the claimed “requesting node”
encompasses Ballette’s device 10, with the claimed “network node”
encompassing Ballette’s Group Management Entity. (See Ans. 5). Further,
Ballette refers to group 40 as “a group of telecommunications devices 40
upon which the invention may be implemented” in which “[t]he group
includes device 10 and device 20” and “is managed by a group management
entity 30.” (Ballette 149.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, as well as claims 2, 3, and 5 not separately argued. See App. Br. 6—
11.
5
Appeal 2017-004140
Application 13/122,345
Second Issue
In finding Ballette discloses the claim limitation at issue, the
Examiner relies on the disclosure in Ballette of an extension of the existing
SIP event notification framework in which “SIP NOTIFY” and “SIP OK”
are procedures of the SIP extension protocol, and further disclosure that the
SIP NOTIFY notification message is sent before the SIP 200 OK
acknowledgment of the session being established. (Ans. 6; Ballette Figs.
2—3, H 33—34, 19.) The Examiner further interprets the term “session” as
“the Session of the Initiation Protocol (SIP) message.” (Ans. 6.) We agree
with the Examiner’s findings, and Appellants do not challenge the
Examiner’s findings in the Reply. (See Reply Br. 1—2).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4.
Third Issue
In finding Ballette discloses the claim limitation at issue, the
Examiner relies on the disclosure in Ballette of “the group manager
sending] a SIP NOTIFY message (M13) to device 10, which shows the
reason for a change in a group member’s status.” (Ans. 6; Ballette 172.)
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that the claimed “reason for a change in a
group members’ status” encompasses Ballette’s disclosure. Appellants do
not challenge the Examiner’s findings in the Reply. (See Reply Br. 1—2).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Fourth Issue
In combining Ballette with Matsumoto in the obviousness rejection of
independent claims 7 and 9, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
“Matsumoto is directed to a group communication method and apparatus
and management device capable to manage group communication using IP
6
Appeal 2017-004140
Application 13/122,345
multicast to distribute group data” (Ans. 7; Matsumoto Tflf 12—13, 32) and
further that:
the combination of the references as presented would allow one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine
the SIP event notification frame work for group members
management [taught] by Ballette and the IP multicast to
distribute group communication messages to provide[] effective
communication with the benefit of preventing excessive
network traffic.
(Ans. 7; Matsumoto 112.) Appellants do not challenge the Examiner’s
findings in the Reply.
Appellants’ arguments regarding independent claims 7 and 9 repeat
arguments made for independent claim 1, which we find unpersuasive for
similar reasons. (See App. Br. 9-11.) Appellants’ arguments for dependent
claims 10 and 12, repeat arguments made for dependent claims 4 and 6,
which we find unpersuasive for similar reasons. (See App. Br. 11.)
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 7 and 9, as well as dependent claims 10 and 12, and dependent claims
8 and 11 not separately argued. (See App. Br. 9—11.)
CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, we sustain the anticipation rejection of
claims 1—6 by Ballette, and we also sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 7—12 over Ballette and Matsumoto.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—12 is affirmed.
7
Appeal 2017-004140
Application 13/122,345
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).
AFFIRMED
8