Ex Parte Mo et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2016

13117288 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/117,288 05/27/2011
76614 7590
Terry W, Kramer, Esq,
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
04/27/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fan Mo
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.
ALC 3709 7317
EXAMINER
DINH, KHANH Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2016 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp@alcatel-lucent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FAN MO, PRADEEP MEKALA, and JUSTIN NEWCOMB
Appeal2014-005537
Application 13/117,288
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, KRISTEN L. DROESCH, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1--4, 10-14, and 19--23.2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Alcatel-Lucent Canada, Inc. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
2 The Examiner objects to claims 5-9, 15-18, and 24--27 as dependent upon
rejected independent claims, and indicates these claims would be allowable
if rewritten in independent form. Non-Final Act. 5.
Appeal2014-005537
Application 13/117,288
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to allowing a network operator to
manage the Quality of Service (QoS) of a subscriber in a wireline network
based on the subscriber's usage and a current time period. Spec. i-f 22.
Claim 1 is illustrative (emphasis and bracketed material added):
1. A session management node comprising:
a receiver configured to receive, from a
network access server (NAS), an accounting
message wherein the accounting message indicates
a network usage of a subscriber;
a session information storage that includes a
record of an accumulated network usage of the
subscriber;
[L 1] a session manager configured to
determine an authorized Quality of Service (QoS) to
provide to the subscriber based at least upon the
subscriber's accumulated network usage and an
1 , , • 1
upaare nme; ana
a transmitter configured to send an
authorization message to the NAS indicating the
authorized QoS that the NAS should provide to the
subscriber.
The Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 19, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Gulliford (US 6,618,355 Bl; Sept. 9, 2003).
Claims 3, 12, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Gulliford and Booth (US 2006/0187854 Al; Aug. 24, 2006).
2
Appeal2014-005537
Application 13/117,288
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
The Examiner finds, in relevant part, Gulliford anticipates limitation
L 1 by disclosing "assessing subscribers' usage level and tariffing level" and
"multiple quality of services (QOSs) for different usage from user by using
the accumulated data usage, time stamps of the downloads collected from
transceivers and other network elements collected by the activity collection
system ACS." Ans. 2; see also Non-Final Act. 3.
Appellants contend, inter alia, the cited disclosure fails to describe
determining an authorized QoS based at least upon the subscriber's
accumulated network usage and an update time, as recited in limitation L 1.
App Br. 5-11; Reply Br. 2-3. Rather, Appellants contend, the cited
passages of Gulliford disclose purchasing or billing for a particular QoS.
App. Br. 6-7, 9; Reply Br. 3.
We agree with Appellants. A claim is anticipated only if each and
every element as set forth in the claims is found, either expressly or
inherently described in a single prior art reference, and arranged as required
by the claim. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil. Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628,
631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). The Examiner fails, based on the record before us, to
explain sufficiently how the cited billing for a provided QoS or purchasing a
particular QoS discloses the claimed determining an authorized QoS to
provide based upon the subscriber's accumulated network usage and an
update time.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims 2 and 4. In rejecting
3
Appeal2014-005537
Application 13/117,288
independent claims 10 and 19 together with their dependent claims 11, 13,
14, 20, 22, and 23, the Examiner relies on findings similar to those discussed
above for limitations in claims 10 and 19 commensurate in scope with
limitation LI of claim 1. Non-Final Act. 3--4. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of these claims for the
reasons discussed above.
Obviousness
In rejecting dependent claims 3, 12, and 21 as obvious over Gulliford
and Booth, the Examiner relies on Gulliford as teaching or suggesting
limitation L 1 of claim 1 and its commensurate limitations in independent
claims 10 and 19, as discussed above. Non-Final Act. 4--5. The Examiner
fails to make findings based on the teachings of Booth sufficient to repair the
deficiencies of Gulliford discussed above. Id. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3, 12, and 21.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting claims 1--4, 10-14, and
19-23.
REVERSED
4