Ex Parte Milinski et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardFeb 4, 2019

13818196 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 4, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/818,196 02/21/2013 10948 7590 02/06/2019 Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC 4 Research Drive, Suite 202 Shelton, CT 06484 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alexander Milinski 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. 800.1786.Ul(US) 8276 EXAMINER BHATTI, HASHIM S ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2472 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/06/2019 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): USPTO@hspatent.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALEXANDER MILINSKI and JOZSEF VARGA Appeal2018-005556 Application 13/818,196 1 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and JOYCE CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, and 18-20. Claims 2, 6-11, and 14--17 have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. Representative Claim Appellants' disclosed and claimed invention pertains to a session control entity for an internet protocol multimedia subsystem employed 1 According to Appellants, Nokia Solutions and Networks is the real party in interest (Br. 2). Appeal2010-003230556 Application 11/045,514 during an emergency packet data connection (Spec. 1 :5-2:20; Title; Abs.; claims 1 and 13). More specifically, the disclosed invention provides "a packet data network gateway" for "maintaining a defined range of internet protocol addresses allocated for emergency packet data connections, said range of internet protocol addresses being shared by said packet data network gateway and a session control entity, said method comprising:" ( claims 5 and 19). An understanding of the invention can be further derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below with bracketed lettering and emphasis added: 1. A session control entity for an internet protocol multimedia subsystem, said session control entity comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory including computer program code and [A] a defined range of internet protocol addresses allocated for emergency packet data connections, said range of internet protocol addresses being shared by a packet data network gateway and said session control entity, the at least one memory and the computer program code configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the session control entity to perform the following: receive a request to register a user equipment for an emergency service in the internet protocol multimedia subsystem, said request including an internet protocol address for the user equipment, said internet protocol address being assigned to said user equipment by said packet data network gateway from said range of internet protocol addresses; determine whether the request is a request to register for an emergency service by detecting an emergency indication in the request; determine whether the request is received via an emergency packet data connection by determining whether the internet protocol address in the request is within said range of 2 Appeal2010-003230556 Application 11/045,514 internet protocol addresses allocated for emergency packet data connections; and reject the request when, based on the determinations, the request is received via an emergency packet data connection and the request is not a request to register for an emergency service, or transmit the request towards the internet protocol multimedia subsystem when, based on the determinations, the request is received via an emergency packet data connection and the request is a request to register for an emergency service. The Examiner's Rejections ( 1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 18-2 0 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Aerrabotu (US 2004/0199914 Al; published Oct. 7, 2004) and He (US 2010/0048161 Al; published Feb. 25, 2010). Final Act. 2---6; Ans. 2-6. (2) The Examiner rejected dependent claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Aerrabotu, He, and 3GPP TS 23 .167, VOL. 9 .4.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) emergency sessions (Release 9), pp. 1-38 (2010) (hereinafter, "3GPP"). Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 6-7. 3 Appeal2010-003230556 Application 11/045,514 Issues on Appeal Based on Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Br. 12-14 ), 2 and in light of the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-8), the following two principal issues are presented on appeal: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, and 18-20 because the base combination of Aerrabotu and He fails to teach or suggest a session control entity for an internet protocol multimedia subsystem including a memory defined by limitation [A] ( claim 1 supra), namely, having "a defined range of internet protocol addresses allocated for emergency packet data connections, said range of internet protocol addresses being shared by a packet data network gateway and said session control entity," as recited in representative claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 2-7; Ans. 2- 7) in light of Appellants' contentions in the Appeal Brief (Br. 12-14) that the Examiner has erred, as well as the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-8). 2 Appellants' argument (Br. 13) that independent claim 12 is patentable for similar reasons as provided for claim 1 is unpersuasive inasmuch as claim 12 does not recite limitation [A], or any commensurate limitation. Claim 12 merely recites "assigning a range of internet protocol addresses for emergency packet data connections in a packet data network gateway" and assigning an IP address from the range of IP addresses for emergency packet data connections. 4 Appeal2010-003230556 Application 11/045,514 Claims 1, 3, 5, 12, 13, and 18-20 We disagree with Appellants' arguments (Br. 12-13) as to representative independent claim 1. With regard to claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2--4), as well as the Advisory Action mailed August 3, 2017 (p. 2), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to the Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-8). We highlight and amplify certain teachings and suggestions of Aerrabotu as follows. In rejecting claim 1 over the combination of Aerrabotu and He, the Examiner relies upon Aerrabotu as teaching or suggesting limitation [A] recited in claim 1, supra. More specifically, the Examiner relies on the following portions of Aerrabotu to support this finding: Figure 1 and paragraphs 18, 21, and 27 (see Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2-3, 8). Appellants contend (Br. 13) Aerrabotu fails to show or suggest limitation [A], namely, a memory having "a defined range of internet protocol addresses allocated for emergency packet data connections, said range of internet protocol addresses being shared by a packet data network gateway and said session control entity." Specifically, Appellants contend that although Aerrabotu discloses "'check[ing] whether the incoming packets ha[ ve] [sic] an IP address which belongs to interim E-PDN IP addresses"' (Br. 13 citing Aerrabotu ,r 21 ), paragraph 21 of Aerrabotu does not teach or suggest limitation [A]. We agree with the Examiner (Final Act. 2--4; Ans. 2--4, 8) that Aerrabotu (Fig. 1; ,r,r 18, 21, 27) teaches or suggests limitation [A], and, therefore, the base combination of Aerrabotu and He teaches or suggests all 5 Appeal2010-003230556 Application 11/045,514 of the recited limitations in claim 1. Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief or otherwise rebutted the Examiner's reliance on Figure 1 and paragraphs 18 and 27 of Aerrabotu (see Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2-3, 8) with persuasive argument or evidence. Based on the foregoing, Appellants' contentions are not persuasive of Examiner error with regard to claim 1. In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 3, 5, 12, 13, and 18-20 grouped therewith. Claim 4 Appellants have failed to show the Examiner erred in determining that the combination of Aerrabotu, He, and 3GPP teaches or suggests the session control entity recited in claim 4 because Appellants do not address the merits of the rejection of claim 4, but merely rely on the arguments presented as to claim 1 (see Br. 13-14). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) (requiring a statement in the briefs as to each ground of rejection presented by Appellants for review, and stating that arguments not presented in the briefs by Appellants will be refused consideration). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above as to claim 1, we also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 4. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, and 18-20 because the base combination of Aerrabotu and He teaches or suggests a session control entity for an internet protocol multimedia subsystem including a memory having "a defined range of internet protocol addresses allocated for emergency packet data connections, said range of internet 6 Appeal2010-003230556 Application 11/045,514 protocol addresses being shared by a packet data network gateway and said session control entity," as recited in claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 3-5, 12, 13, and 18- 20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7