Ex Parte Mutikainen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 30, 2017

13129050 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JARI MUTIKAINEN and CURT WONG Appeal 2016-002386 Application 13/129,050 Technology Center 2600 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 21, 23, 24, 26—33, 35, 36, 38, and 39, which are all of the pending claims. See App. Br. 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-002386 Application 13/129,050 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to “communication networks supporting emergency sessions and calls.” Spec. 1:4—5. Claims 21, 30, and 36 are independent. Claim 21 is reproduced below for reference: 21. A method comprising: receiving, at a mobility switching center, a first message representing a request to handover an emergency communication session from a first network to a second network; obtaining, by the mobility switching center, a value representing an emergency session transfer number, the value representing the emergency session transfer number locally generated at the mobility switching center; and sending, by the mobility switching center, a second message to the first network, the second message initiating handover of the emergency communication session from the first network to the second network, the second message comprising the value representing the emergency session transfer number. The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 21, 23, 24, 26—33, 35, 36, 38, and 39 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 3GPP TS 23.216 V8.0.0, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Single Radio Voice Call Continuity (SRVCC); Stage 2 (Release 8); 2008 (hereinafter, “3GPP”) and Keller (US 2011/0141979 Al; June 16, 2011). Final Act. 4. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred; we adopt the 2 Appeal 2016-002386 Application 13/129,050 Examiner’s findings and conclusions as our own, and we add the following primarily for emphasis. A. Value Locally Generated Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “Keller fails to disclose or suggest the claim 21 ‘value representing the emergency number locally generated at the mobility switching center.’” App. Br. 13 (emphasis omitted). Appellants contend that, rather, Keller teaches generating values at components that are separate from the recited mobility switching center: (1) “Keller’s ‘tel URE address is generated at the emergency call session control function;” and (2) Keller’s “session transfer identifiers” are generated at the session continuity module. App. Br. 15—16. We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive as not commensurate with the claim language. Claim 21 recites the value is “locally generated at the mobility switching center” (emphasis added). Keller discloses that the Emergency Call Session Control Function (E-CSCF) and the Mobile Switching Center Server (MSC-S) (i.e., mobility switching center) “may be co-located, i.e. provided at the same location, or even integrated within a single network component.” Keller 127; see also Keller Figs. 3—5. Keller teaches a similar arrangement for the session continuity module (SC). See Keller 128 (“also a session continuity (SC) function may be integrated with the MSC-S 40.”). Appellants argue that each component of Keller is separate and “handles its own tasks” (see, e.g., Reply Br. 11), but do not persuade us that the recited “locally generated at the mobility switching center” precludes Keller’s teaching of values generated in modules that are co-located or integrated with the MSC-S (See Ans. 3). 3 Appeal 2016-002386 Application 13/129,050 Further, the Examiner finds Keller’s disclosure that “stored information may be received from the E-CSCF module 30' or may be generated on the basis of information received from the E-CSCF module''’ teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Ans. 3 (quoting Keller 143); see also Final Act. 3. Appellants do not challenge this finding. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Keller teaches or suggests “the value representing the emergency session transfer number locally generated at the mobility switching center,” as recited by independent claim 21, and similarly recited by independent claims 30 and 36. See App. Br. 16. B. Motivation to Combine Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejection is in error, because “[t]he Examiner fails to provide adequate support and motivation for the combination” and “a person of ordinary skill would have no reason to combine these two different systems as 3GPP is a standard and provides no guidance as to how the system is implemented.” App. Br. 16. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We note Keller is directed to using communication networks, and explicitly refers to 3GPP specifications. See, e.g., Keller || 5, 10. Further, we find the Examiner has provided a rationale sufficient to support the finding of obviousness: that “it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the 3 GPP invention by employing the teaching as taught by Keller to include the claimed limitations so as to support an emergency session domain transfer thereby enhancing system performance and functionality.” Final Act. 6. Appellants have not demonstrated why such a rationale is 4 Appeal 2016-002386 Application 13/129,050 erroneous, or why a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have reached the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s combination is in error. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 21, 30, and 36. Appellants advance no further argument on dependent claims 23, 24, 26—29, 31—33, 35, 38, and 39. See App. Br. 16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 21, 23, 24, 26—33, 35, 36, 38, and 39 is affirmed. 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 5