Ex Parte Pancorbo Marcos et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2017

13283816 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2017)

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.
13/283,816 10/28/2011 Maria Belen Pancorbo Marcos P34053-US2 1079
27045 7590 02/01/2017
F.RTrSSON TNC EXAMINER
6300 LEGACY DRIVE PATEL, HITESHKUMAR R
M/SEVR 1-C-ll
PLANO, TX 75024 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2017 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):
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
michelle. sanderson @ eric sson .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARIA BELEN PANCORBO MARCOS and LOUIS SEGURA
Appeal 2016-001110
Application 13/283,8161
Technology Center 2400
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, NATHAN A. ENGELS, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—25. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention relates to “Internet Protocol-
Connectivity Access Network (IP-CAN) session establishment to control
routing of data flows associated with an end user to a deployed traffic
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget
LM Ericsson. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-001110
Application 13/283,816
detection function (TDF) node or bypassing of data flows from the TDF
node depending on the end user’s privacy policy.” Spec. 1,11. 11—15.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the subject matter of the appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A network node that participates in an Internet Protocol-
Connectivity Access Network (IP-CAN) session establishment
within a telecommunications network, the network node
comprising:
at least one processor; and,
at least one memory that stores processor-executable
instructions, wherein the at least one processor interfaces with
the at least one memory to execute the processor-executable
instructions, whereby said network node is operable to:
receive a user privacy policy of an end user,
wherein the user privacy policy indicates whether or not
data flows to and from a user equipment used by the end
user are to be routed through a traffic detection function
(TDF) node; and
utilize the user privacy policy during the IP-CAN
session establishment to assign an IP address to the end
user, wherein the assigned IP address ensures that the
data flows to and from the user equipment are one of
routed and not routed through a TDF node depending on
the user privacy policy.
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4—8, 11, 12, 14—18, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
(i) Rasanen et al. (WO 2012/045341 A2; published Apr. 12, 2012)
(hereinafter “Rasanen”); (ii) Allot Communications, Service Awareness
alternative la description, 3GPP TSG SA WG2 Meeting #78 (Feb. 2010)
(San Francisco, CA) (hereinafter “SA WG2”); and (iii) 3GPP, 3rd
2
Appeal 2016-001110
Application 13/283,816
Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Services
and System Aspects; Study on Policy solutions and enhancements (Release
10), TR23.813 (2011) (hereinafter “TR 23.813”).
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 3, 9, 10, 13, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rasanen,
SA WG2, TR 23.813, and Patterson et al. (US 2012/0129488 Al; published
May 24, 2012).
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 21—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Rasanen and SA WG2.
DISPOSITIVE ISSUE ON APPEAL
The dispositive issue for this appeal is whether the combination of
Rasanen, SA WG2, and TR 23.813 teaches or suggests “utilizing] the user
privacy policy during the IP-CAN session establishment to assign an IP
address to the end user.”
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Rasanen, SA WG2, and TR
23.813, —particularly SA WG2 and TR 23.813, which the Examiner cites
for teaching the disputed limitation — fails to teach or suggest that the user’s
privacy policy is used to assign the user’s IP address during the IP-CAN
session establishment in accordance with claims 1, 11, 21, 23, and 25. See
App. Br. 7—17; Reply Br. 2—8. Specifically, Appellants argue SA WG2
instead teaches that the IP-CAN session is established and the IP address is
assigned (i.e., step 2) before the user’s privacy policy is retrieved (i.e., step
5). See App. Br. 9, 14 (citing SA WG2 Fig. 7.2-1 (“IP-CAN Session
3
Appeal 2016-001110
Application 13/283,816
Establishment”); 4 (stating for step 2 of Figure 7.2-1 that the Policy and
Charging Enforcement Function (“PCEF”) Gateway (“GW”) “accepts the
request and assigns an IP address for the user”); 5 (stating for step 5 of
Figure 7.2-1 that the Policy and Charging Rules Function (“PCRF”) stores
the retrieved user privacy policy)). Appellants also argue TR 23.813 teaches
using a user’s privacy policy to determine whether service detection is
allowed and what services should be detected, rather than relating in any
way to assigning a user’s IP address (e.g., the privacy policy is not
communicated to the GW(PCEF) which assigns the IP address). See Reply
Br. 3 (citing TR 23.813 § 4.3.2.2.2.5.2 (flow 2)).
The Examiner finds the combination teaches the disputed limitation.
See Ans. 3—6. As to SA WG2, the Examiner finds it teaches receiving the
IP-CAN establishment request and assigning an IP address for a user (i.e.,
step 2), as well as using the user’s privacy policy to validate and authenticate
services (i.e., steps 3—9) during establishment of the IP-CAN session
because the “IP-CAN session is not established until the final confirmation
acknowledgment message as shown in step 10.” Ans. 5 (citing SA WG2
Fig. 7.2-1; § 4.4.2.1, 5). As to TR 23.813, the Examiner finds it teaches,
based on a user’s privacy policy (e.g., having a known application identifier
for use by the PCRF and TDF) to determine whether to allow service traffic
detection and traffic bypass during IP-CAN session establishment (e.g.,
steps 4—6). See id. (citing TR 23.813 § 4.4.3.1 Alternative 1). The
Examiner then concludes it would have been obvious to combine these
teachings to teach or suggest using the privacy policy to assign the IP
address to provide a mechanism for a TDF determination. See Ans. 5—6.
4
Appeal 2016-001110
Application 13/283,816
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We find the cited
portions of SA WG2 and TR 23.813 fail to teach or suggest that the user’s
privacy policy is used in assigning the IP address, regardless of whether the
IP-CAN session is established as the result of step 2 (as Appellants assert) or
step 10 (as the Examiner finds). See SA WG2 Fig. 7.2-1, § 4.4.2.1, 5;
TR 23.813 § 4.3.2.2.2.5.2. Furthermore, the Examiner’s conclusion that one
of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to use the user’s privacy policy
to assign the IP address so as to denote TDF is unsupported by the record.
Rather, the cited references, such as TR 23.813, rely on other ways (e.g., an
application identifier known to both PCRF and TDF) to denote TDF related
services, without suggesting relying on an IP address assignment
mechanism. See TR 23.813 § 4.4.3.1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1,
11, 21, 23, and 25, nor the remaining claims on appeal, each of which
depend, at least indirectly, from one of these independent claims.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—25.
REVERSED
5