Ex Parte Maxwell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 23, 2014

12839724 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 23, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte STEWART H. MAXWELL, WESLEY R. ERHART, SRINIVAS ESWARA, ANTHONY D. BENNNETT, and ERIC C. CORUM ____________ Appeal 2012-006100 Application 12/839,7241 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MARC S. HOFF, DENISE M. POTHIER, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–15. App. Br. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 The real party in interest is Rockstar BIDCO LP. Appeal 2012-006100 Application 12/839,724 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to an access gateway node including a data function to route packets containing traffic data between the control node and the external data network. See Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized: 1. An access gateway node for coupling a control node in a wireless communications network to an external data network, the access gateway node comprising: at least one processor; a data function executable on the at least one processor to route packets containing traffic data between the control node and the external data network, wherein the data function in the access gateway node comprises a data function of the control node; and an interface to the control node to enable exchange of control messages between the data function and a control function in the control node. THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1–10 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Puuskari (US 2002/0032800 Al; Mar. 14, 2002) and Jung (US 2005/0237969 Al; Oct. 27, 2005). Ans. 5–8. The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Puuskari, Jung, and Ton (US 2003/0117948 Al; June 26, 2003). Ans. 8–9. The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Puuskari, Jung, and Tsao (US 2003/0169712 A1; Sept. 11, 2003). Ans. 9–10. Appeal 2012-006100 Application 12/839,724 3 The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Puuskari, Jung, and Verma (US 2006/0050667 A1; Mar. 9, 2006). Ans. 10–11. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER PUUSKARI AND JUNG The Examiner here finds that Puuskari discloses each limitation of claim 1, except for wherein the data function in the access gateway node comprises a data function of the control node. Ans. 5–6. The Examiner, however, relies on Jung for these features. On the other hand, Appellants assert that Jung fails to teach the claimed access gateway node that has a data function of the control node and also the claimed interface. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellants contend that Jung teaches an integrated Serving General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Support Node (SGSN) and Gateway GPRS Support Node (GGSN) within one node. According to Appellants, although both the SGSN and GGSN are within one node, the functions of each remain separate and distinct from each other and therefore, the GGSN does not comprise the data function of the control node as recited. App. Br. 7. Appellants additionally argue that Puuskari fails to teach that a data plane of the SGSN be moved to the GGSN or an interface to facilitate exchange of control messages because of moving the Subscriber Data Function (SDF) function. App. Br. 8. Finally, Appellants also argue that no reason existed to combine the cited references. App. Br. 10. Appeal 2012-006100 Application 12/839,724 4 ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that Puuskari and Jung together disclose “a data function executable on the at least one processor to route packets containing traffic data between the control node and the external data network, wherein the data function in the access gateway node comprises a data function of the control node” and “an interface to the control node to enable exchange of control messages between the data function and a control function in the control node,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS Claims 1–10 and 15 Based on the record before us, we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1 as obvious in view of Puuskari and Jung. As an initial matter, we consider the scope of claim 1 and note that some of Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim. For example, an underlying premise to Appellants’ contentions is that the claimed data function (within the gate access node) is limited only to the data function of the control node. Claim 1, however, recites that the data function in the access gateway node comprises a data function of the control node. This use of open-ended language (“comprises”) identifies that the claimed data function includes a data function of the control node, but is not limited only to that data function. In turn then, the claimed interface to the control node for exchanging control messages between the data function and a control function in the control node is not limited only to exchanges between the data function of the control node (residing in the gateway access node) and the control function in the control node. Appeal 2012-006100 Application 12/839,724 5 Another example is Appellants’ attempt to distinguish Puuskari, because the reference requires traffic to pass through the control node before the access gateway node. See e.g., App. Br. 7–8 (contrasting Puuskari because “the GPRS transmission plane has to pass from the BSS through the SGSN and then to the GGSN. . . .”). The claims, however, do not prohibit traffic from being transported through the control node. Moreover, the claim expressly recites that packets are routed between the control node and the external data network. See App. Br. 12, Claim App’x. We now turn to Appellants’ contentions with respect to Puuskari and Jung. Appellants first argue that Jung fails to teach both the data function in the access gateway node comprising a data function of the control node as well as the claimed interface. App. Br. 6–7. This argument, however, is unpersuasive because the Examiner relies on Puuskari as teaching the claimed interface. See Ans. 14–15. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); see In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellants then argue that Jung fails to teach that the data function in the access gateway node comprising a data function of the control node. Reply Br. 2–6. In particular, Appellants assert that “Jung essentially moves the control node (SGSN) and the gateway node (GGSN) into an integrated unit.” Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants although the control node (SGSN) and gateway node (GGSN) of Jung now cohabitate the same integrated structure, the control node (SGSN) still performs its own data packet routing and transfer tasks via its data function (SDF), and its own mobility management and subscriber management via its control function (SCF), and the gateway node (GGSN) still Appeal 2012-006100 Application 12/839,724 6 performs its own data packet routing and transfer tasks via its data function (SDF), and its own mobility management and subscriber management via its control function (SCF). Nothing in Jung teaches or suggests otherwise. Reply Br. 4. This argument though fails to address the Examiner’s findings persuasively. Specifically, the Examiner finds that the integrated gateway IGSN in Jung is an access gateway node and that the data function (i.e. traffic module) within the integrated gateway IGSN (i.e. access gateway node) comprises a data functionality of the control node. See Ans. 6, 14–15. Merely identifying additional features within the IGSN access gateway node does not persuasively explain why the IGSN itself cannot satisfy the claimed access gateway node limitations. Moreover, we disagree that Jung fails to teach integrating the data functions of the SGSN and the GGSN. As shown in Fig. 5, Jung includes separate SGSN and GGSN signaling (control) modules, but includes one traffic module that processes all traffic. See e.g., Jung, Fig. 5 and ¶44. We are therefore unconvinced that the Examiner erred in finding that Jung teaches the data function in the access gateway node comprising a data function of the control node. Appellants additionally argue that Puuskari fails to teach the claimed interface. App. Br. 8. In particular, Appellants argue that “Puuskari contains no hint of an interface to facilitate the exchange of control messages, which is utilized in the claimed invention because of the moving of the SDF function.” Id. This argument relies on the incorrect premise discussed above that the claimed data function is limited only to the data Appeal 2012-006100 Application 12/839,724 7 function of the control node. Because this argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, we find it unavailing. Finally, Appellants assert that there is no teaching in either Puuskari or Jung that warrants their combination. App. Br. 10. Notably absent in Appellants’ argument is any discussion or identification of error in the reasons set forth by the Examiner. Appellants’ blanket assertions, without more, are not persuasive. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Puuskari and Jung together render obvious claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2–10 and 15, not argued separately. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of these claims. THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claims 11–14 Appellants here rely on the same arguments for the remaining obviousness rejections as presented for claim 1. See App. Br. 10 (noting that the dependent claims are allowable for at least the same reasons as claim 1). As discussed above, we find these arguments unpersuasive. Therefore, based on the record before us, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11–14 as obvious by the cited prior art and accordingly, we sustain the rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–15. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–15 is affirmed. Appeal 2012-006100 Application 12/839,724 8 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj