Ex Parte Luo et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 201713777618 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2017) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation