Ex Parte Price et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 21, 2014

11687358 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 21, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte DAVID PRICE, ALAN DARBYSHIRE, and RICKY KAURA ____________________ Appeal 2011-008901 Application 11/687,358 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: GAY ANN SPAHN, JOHN W. MORRISON, and THOMAS F. SMEGAL, Administrative Patent Judges. MORRISON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-008901 Application 11/687,358 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 30. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. CLAIMED INVENTION Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of handling queries for subscription data for a user of a communications network, comprising the steps of: a Subscriber Location Function (SLF) receiving a query for subscription data for a user from a network element of an Internet Protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) network, the query comprising an identity of the user; the SLF looking up in a database the user identity to identify a subscriber data server in which the user’s subscription data can be found; and the SLF proxying the query to the identified subscriber data server. REJECTION Claims 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Hua (US 2006/0067338 A1, published Mar. 30, 2006). ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites, inter alia, “the SLF proxying the query to the identified subscriber data server.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner finds that Hua discloses all of the recited limitations of claim 1 including “SLF proxying the query to the identified subscriber data server.” Ans. 5 Appeal 2011-008901 Application 11/687,358 3 (citing Hua, para.[0038]). To clarify this finding and in response to Appellants’ argument, the Examiner further finds If the system determines that [the home subscriber service or] HSS is local[,] the [subscriber location function or] SLF then . . . sends the message on for processing. Proxying occurs when the SLF populates the Redirect-Host attribute value pair (AVP) that is proxied to the local HSS for processing. As stated by the reference “there is no need in these circumstances to send the information . . . back” [and] therefore[,] the SLF is operating as a proxy for messages that are going to the local HSS. Ans. 13. Appellants argue that “[p]aragraph [0038] of Hua discloses the SLF determining a[n] HSS, populating an AVP with information and transmitting a message, [but p]aragraph [0038] does not disclose ‘the SLF proxying the query to the identified subscriber data server.’” App. Br. 5. Appellants further argue that “[s]imply because there [is] no need to send information back to the [call service control function or] CSCF or [the application server or] AS, it does not follow that the SLF operates as a proxy for messages going to the local HSS.” Reply Br. 2 The key issue here is construing the meaning of the claim term proxying as it relates to the SLF. The Specification does not provide a direct definition to “proxying,” but does describe how the SLF handles proxied queries. The Examiner has found that when Hua’s HSS is local to the SLF, the SLF acts as a proxy for messages going to the HSS. The Specification describes the function of the SLF, when the SLF is local to a database (HSS in Hua, SDM or Subscriber Data Manager, in the Specification). Spec. 8. In particular, the Specification contrasts the operation of a proxy SLF 30 and the operation of a redirect SLF 22 by disclosing that Appeal 2011-008901 Application 11/687,358 4 Figure 5 shows the functioning of proxy SLF 30 co-located with its regional SDM 24 according to the present invention in contrast to the functioning of re-direct SLF 22 where queries are for “local” subscribers. Where the subscriber is in the local SDM, the first query is more efficient in the proxy SLF approach of the present invention since the Cx query is not re- directed back to AM 20 but proxied by SLF 30 to SDM 24 – in this case SDM A. Since SDM A and SLF 30 are co-located, this is very efficient. Spec. 8, l. 26 to Spec. 9 l. 1. Thus, the proxy SLF 30 sends “proxied queries” to SDM A 24, and receives responses from SDM A 24. The proxy SLF 22 then sends the responses to the [application manager or] AM 20. See Hua, Fig. 5. On the other hand, the redirect SLF 22 does not send queries to SDM A, nor does it receive responses from SDM A 24, but merely redirects the AM to the location of SDM A 24. Id. Thus, consistent with the Specification, “proxying a query” includes sending queries and receiving responses from the SDM. Based on the foregoing, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner has erred by finding that “if the system determines . . . HSS is local[,] the SLF then [] sends the message on for processing” and this describes proxying the query. When the SLF “sends the message on” and does not receive or process a response, the SLF is redirecting the query, similar to redirect SLF 22 described above, and not “proxying the query” as claimed. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, and its dependent claims 2-10, as anticipated by Hua. Independent claims 11 and 21 respectively recite similar limitations of “an output for proxying the query to the identified subscriber data server” and “proxying the query to the identified subscriber data server.” App. Br., Clms. App’x. The Examiner makes no findings to cure Hua’s deficiency of Appeal 2011-008901 Application 11/687,358 5 failing to disclose or suggest “proxying the query” for the reasons discussed above. See Ans. 6-11. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claims 11 and 21, and their dependent claims 12-20 and 22-30, respectively, as anticipated by Hua. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-30 is reversed. REVERSED Klh