Ex Parte Luo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 23, 2017

13777618 (P.T.A.B. May. 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.
13/777,618 02/26/2013 Shaohua Luo 13674-1187 8827
93823 7590
BGL/Huawei
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
05/23/2017 EXAMINER
MUSA, ABDELNABI O
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2472
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/23/2017 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAOHUA LUO, ZHENHUA LIU, and
HAO ZHANG
Appeal 2017-002192
Application 13/777,6181
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, HUNG H. BUI, and IRVIN E. BRANCH,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—15, which are all of the claims
pending in the application. Claims App’x. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. is the real party
in interest. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed March 21, 2016
(“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed September 30, 2016 (“Ans.”);
Final Office Action mailed October 21, 2015 (“Final Act.”); and original
Specification filed February 26, 2013 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2017-002192
Application 13/777,618
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to “a method, a device and a system for
establishing a bearer for a GSM [Global System for Mobile Communication]
network.” Spec. 12.
Claims 1, 6, and 11 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants’ invention, as reproduced below with disputed limitations in
italics'.
1. A method for data transmission, comprising:
receiving, by a first media gateway (MGW), from a base station
controller (BSC), an internet protocol (IP) packet with an encoded voice
payload encapsulated therein;
determining, by the first MGW, that a codec type of the encoded voice
payload is the same as a codec type adopted by a second MGW connected to
the first MGW; and
sending, by the first MGW, the encoded voice payload to the second
MGW after the determination.
App. Br. 9 (Claims App’x).
Examiner’s Rejection3 and References
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Belling (US 2009/0010217 Al; published Jan. 8, 2009)
and He et al. (US 2007/0165636 Al; published July 19, 2007; “He”). Final
Act. 3—5.
3 Claims 1—15 also stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Sindhwani et al. (US 2009/0003570 Al; published Jan. 1,
2009; “Sindhwani”). Final Act. 5—14. In response, Appellants submitted
certified translations of priority documents under 35 U.S.C. § 119 to
overcome the 102(e) rejection. As such, the 102(e) rejection has been
withdrawn and is no longer on appeal. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal 2017-002192
Application 13/777,618
Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the combination of Belling and He teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation:
“determining, by the first MGW, that a codec type of the encoded
voice payload is the same as a codec type adopted by a second
MGW connected to the first MGW”
as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 6 and 11.
App. Br. 5—6.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 6, and 11, the Examiner finds
Belling teaches a media gateway (MGW), shown in Figure 1, having a
processor implemented to perform all the claimed operations, including: (1)
receiving from a base station controller (BSC), an internet protocol (IP)
packet with an encoded voice payload encapsulated therein; and (2) sending
the encoded voice payload to another MGW. Final Act. 3^4 (citing Belling
1139-42, 57, 116, 122, Figs. 1 and 4).
The Examiner then relies on He for teaching “determining that a
codec type of the encoded voice payload is the same as a codec type adopted
by [a second] MGW [connected to the first MGW]” to support the
conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 4 (citing He H 27, 29-31, Figs. 1—2).
According to the Examiner, the rationale to incorporate He’s teachings into
Belling is “to avoid packetization and to improve voice quality.” Id. at 5
(citing He 127).
3
Appeal 2017-002192
Application 13/777,618
He’s Figure 1 is reproduced below:
104 !06
As shown in He’s Figure 1, media gateway (MGW) 100 establishes
calls (e.g., IP packets including voice payload) communications between
UMA network 104 and UMTS network 106. He Tflf 26—27, 32. According
to He, “media gateway 100 [shown in Figure 1] identifies a codec
configuration used by different legs of a UMTS-UMA connection” and then
“determines whether the codec configurations of the call legs match.” He ^fl[
28—30, Fig. 2, steps 200 and 202.
Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Belling. Nor do Appellants dispute the Examiner’s rationale for combining
Belling and He. Appellants even acknowledge
“He [] discloses determining whether both ends of the connection
use the same type of codec. That is, the media gateway
determines the codec types of two nodes (e.g., UMA node and
UMTS node).”
4
Appeal 2017-002192
Application 13/777,618
App. Br. 6. However, Appellants contend He’s “media gateway” used to
determine the codec types of two nodes is not the same as Appellants’
claimed “media gateway [that] determines codec types of voice payload
and of a media gateway.” Id. As such, Appellants argue He does not teach
or suggest the disputed limitation: “determining that a codec type of the
encoded voice payload is the same as a codec type adopted by [a second]
MGW [connected to the first MGW]” as recited in claim 1 and similarly,
claims 6 and 11. Id. at 6—7.
We disagree with Appellants. As correctly recognized by the
Examiner, He’s determination of codec types of two nodes includes “a codec
type of the encoded voice payload” between different gateways (e.g.,
between MGW 100 and MGW 114 through interface Nb). Ans. 3^4 (citing
He H28—29, 32, Fig. 1). For this reason, we sustain the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 6, and 11 and their respective
dependent claims 2—5, 7—10, and 12—15, which Appellants do not argue
separately. App. Br. 6.
CONCEUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
5
Appeal 2017-002192
Application 13/777,618
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
6