Ex Parte Liu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2016

12053095 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
12/053,095
90073 7590
Docket Clerk/HTCL
P.O. Drawer 800889
Dallas, TX 75380
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
03/21/2008 WenyuLIU
05/03/2016
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.
0512093US 3586
EXAMINER
PHUONG, DAI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/03/2016 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):
patents@munckwilson.com
munckwilson@gmail.com
uspatent@huawei.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WENYU LIU, FANG YOU, JIE XU, HUA WEI and YAN LI
Appeal2014-009090
Application 12/053,095
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection
of claims 1, 6-9, 11-15, 19, 20, 22-25, 28-31, 33-36, and 38--40. Claims
2-5, 10, 16-18, 21, 26, 27, 32, and 37 have been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the claimed invention relates to "base station
controller (BSC) multi-homing in CDMA2000" (Spec. i-f2).
Appeal2014-009090
Application 12/053,095
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAHvI
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for implementing Base Station Controller (BSC) multi-
homing in a CDMA2000 network which comprises a BSC and a plurality of
mobile switch centers (MSCs) coupled to the BSC, comprising:
receiving, by the BSC, a message carrying an International Mobile
Subscriber Identification (IMSI) of a mobile subscriber, wherein the BSC
includes a table storing a correspondence between the IMSI and an identity
of an MSC among the plurality of MS Cs;
identifying, by the BSC, the MSC having the identity by searching
the table according to the IMSI carried in the message; and
forwarding, by the BSC, the received message to the identified MSC.
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Ho
r-v1asuda
Gazzard
US 6,553,227B1 Apr. 22, 2003
US 2006/0058060 Al l\1ar. 16, 2006
US 2006/0089146 Al Apr. 27, 1006
Claims 1, 12-15, 19, 20, 22-25, 28-31, 33-36, and 38--40 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho and
Gazzard.
Claims 6-9, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ho, Gazzard, and Masuda.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Ho and Gazzard teaches or would have suggested
2
Appeal2014-009090
Application 12/053,095
"rece1vmg, by the BSC, a message carrying an International iviobile
Subscriber Identification (IMSI)" and "identifYing, by the BSC, the MSC
having the identity by searching the table according to the IMSI'' (Claim 1,
emphasis added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Ho
1. Ho discloses message routing in a wireless communication system
that assigns each serviced mobile unit to a serving mobile switching center
(MSC) (Abst.), wherein an addressing table cross-references each mobile
unit to one of the MS Cs of the system and routing information is contained
in the Temporary Mobile Subscriber Identity (TMSI) of the mobile unit
(col. 8, 11. 16-35).
Gazzard
2. Gazzard discloses controlling call routing, wherein a call from a tester
is identified by comparing the international mobile subscriber identity
(IMSI) or temporary mobile subscriber identity (TMSI) associated with a
call with a list of IMSis or TMSis (i-f26).
IV. ANALYSIS
As for independent claim 1, Appellants contend "the BSC in Gazzard
does not include a correspondence between an IMSI and an identity of an
MSC" (App. Br. 15). Although Appellants concede Gazzard discloses
comparing an IMSI, Appellants contend "the BSC does not select a specific
3
Appeal2014-009090
Application 12/053,095
ivISC based on a correspondence between an IivISI in a message and an
identity of the specific MSC" (App. Br. 15-16, emphasis omitted).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner's findings,
and find no error with the Examiner's conclusion that the claims would have
been obvious over the combination of Ho and Gazzard.
As an initial matter of claim interpretation, we note that although
Appellants contend Gazzard's "BSC does not select a specific MSC ... "
(App. Br. 15, emphasis added), such contention is not commensurate in
scope with the recited language of claim 1. That is, claim 1 does not recite
any "select" step, and in fact, does not require any selecting of any
"specific" MSC. Instead, claim 1 merely requires "identifying" the MSC
"having the identity" by searching the table "according to the IMSI" (claim
1 ).
Furthermore, although Appellants contend "the BSC in Gazzard does
not include a correspondence between an IMSI and an identity of an MSC"
(App. Br. 15, emphasis added), the Examiner finds, and we agree, Ho
"teaches all limitations ... EXCEPT international mobile subscriber
identification (IMSI)." (Ans. 3; FF 1). That is, we find no error with the
Examiner's reliance on Ho, instead of Gazzard, for teaching and suggesting
"identifying ... the MSC having the identity by searching the table" (Claim
1 ). Here, we agree with the Examiner's finding Ho discloses and suggests
"receiving, by the BSC, a message" carrying an identification (TMSI) and
"identifying, by the BSC, the MSC having the identity by searching the
4
Appeal2014-009090
Application 12/053,095
table" according to the TivISI, wherein the only contested limitation missmg
from Ho is the use of an IMSI instead of a TMSI (Ans. 3).
However, we find no error with the Examiner's reliance on Gazzard
"[i]n the same field of endeavor" (Fin. Rej. 7) to teach and suggest the use of
"international mobile subscriber identification (IMSI)" in identifying a
match in an identification table (Ans. 3). In particular, Gazzard discloses
that the international mobile subscriber identity (IMSI) may be used in place
of a temporary mobile subscriber identity (TMSI) in comparing with a list of
identifications (FF 2).
In view of this record, we find no error with the Examiner's
conclusion it would have been obvious to modify Ho such that "the base
controller includes a table storing a corresponding between IMSis [instead
of TMSis] and identities of the plurality of MSCs and identifies a first MSC,
as taught by Gazzard" (Final Rej. 7). We agree with the Examiner that "one
cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually" (Ans. 5).
The test for obviousness is what the combination of references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of obviousness can
be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and
the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The skilled
artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
We find that it would have been well within the level of skill of one skilled
in the art to identify the MSC according to the IMSI in addition to or instead
5
Appeal2014-009090
Application 12/053,095
of the TivISI. As set forth in Gazzard, IivISI can be used instead of a TivISI
(FF 2).
Appellants have provided no evidence that identifying the MSC
according to the IMSI in addition to or instead of the TMSI would have been
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art,"
Leapfrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). Rather, we find Appellants' invention is simply a combination
of familiar prior art practices or acts that would have realized a predictable
result.
Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for independent
claims 19, 24, 30, and 35, and claims 12-15, 20, 22, 23, 25, 28, 29, 31, 33,
34, 36, and 38--40, respectively depending from claims 1, 19, 24, 30, and 35
(App. Br. 19-21 ). Accordingly, we also affirm the rejection of claims 12-
15, 19, 20, 22-25, 28-31, 33-36, and 38--40 over Ho and Gazzard.
As for claims 6-9 and 11, Appellants merely contend "no
combination of Ho with Gazzard and Masuda cures these deficiencies [set
forth with respect to claim 1 ]" (App. Br. 21) and that Masuda does not
disclose the repeated language of claims 7 and 11 (App. Br. 22-23). As
discussed above with respect to claim 1, we find no error with the
Examiner's reliance on Ho and Gazzard. Further, we find no error with the
Examiner finding that the combination of Ho, Gazzard and Masuda teaches
or at least suggests the contested limitation (Ans. 12-15). Thus, we also
affirm the rejections of claims 6-9 and 11 over Ho and Gazzard, in further
view of Masuda.
6
Appeal2014-009090
Application 12/053,095
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 6-9, 11-15, 19, 20,
22-25, 28-31, 33-36, and 38--40 under 35 U.S.C.§ 103(a).
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
7