Ex Parte Suryavanshi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 2018

13893662 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/893,662 05/14/2013 Vijay A. Suryavanshi 12371 7590 09/21/2018 Muncy, Geissler, Olds & Lowe, P.C./QUALCOMM 4000 Legato Road, Suite 310 Fairfax, VA 22033 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. QC131328 4889 EXAMINER AJID, ABDELTIF ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2478 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/21/2018 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): meo.docket@mg-ip.com meo@mg-ip.com ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex Parte VIJA YA. SURYA V ANSHI, JAMES M. LIN, and MOHAMMED ATAUR RAHMAN SHUMAN Appeal2018---003620 Application 13/893,662 Technology Center 2400 Before MAASHID D. SAADAT, JENNIFER S. BISK, and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-14 and 16-43, which represent all the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. 1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed July 17, 2017 ("App. Br."), Reply Brief filed February 21, 2018 ("Reply Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed January 11, 2018 ("Ans."), and the Final Rejection mailed January 18, 2017 ("Final Act). 2 Appellants identify QUALCOMM, INC. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal2018---003620 Application 13/893,662 INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to operating an Internet Protocol (IP) multimedia (IMS) network. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1, 14, 23, and 33--41 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims at issue and is reproduced below: 1. A method of operating an Internet Protocol (IP) multimedia subsystem (IMS) network that is operated by a single operator, comprising: receiving, from a user equipment (UE) that is connected to a non-cellular access network, a request to register to a group IMS sess10n; obtaining location information associated with the UE that indicates that the UE is operating in a given location region; identifying two or more application servers that are each configured to provide IMS service on behalf of the single operator and are deployed in the given location region; determining that the UE and one or more other UEs requesting registration to the group IMS session and located in the given location region are to be registered to a single application server that is selected from the two or more identified application servers irrespective of whether another of the two or more application servers in the given location region is expected to provide higher relative performance for the group IMS session to the UE and/ or the one or more other UEs; and registering the UE with the selected single application server based on the determination. (App. Br., Claims Appendix, 20.) REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-2, 4--7, 9-11, 14, 16-18, 20-28, and 30--43 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Narkar et al. (US 20100208648 Al) and Xavier et al. (WO 2013049587 A2). Final Act. 3. 2 Appeal2018---003620 Application 13/893,662 The Examiner rejected claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Narkar, Xavier, and Cai (US 20080162705 Al). Final Act. 44. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 19, and 29 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Narkar, Xavier, and Li (US 8180887 B2). Final Act. 45. The Examiner rejected claims 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over Narkar, Xavier, and Verbandt (US 2009/0319641 Al). Final Act. 47. ANALYSIS Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1. In particular, Appellants argue the cited references do not teach or suggest "determining that the UE and one or more other UEs requesting registration to the group IMS session and located in the given location region are to be registered to a single application server that is selected from the two or more identified application servers ... ," where the two or more application servers "are each configured to provide IMS service on behalf of a single operator," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12-19; Reply Br. 2-3 (emphases added). In particular, Appellants argue Xavier merely describes a selective redirection scheme between application servers controlled by a first (VPLMN) operator and a second (HPLMN) operator, as opposed to two application servers controlled by the same operator. App. Br. 14. We agree. The Examiner has not sufficiently explained how the cited portions of 3 Appeal2018---003620 Application 13/893,662 Xavier teach the recited determining step, where the applications servers are each operated by or on behalf of a single operator. The Examiner points to Xavier's application provider as teaching the claimed single operator that is operating the IMS network. Ans. 7 ( citing Xavier ,r 91) ( emphasis added). The Examiner concludes that "single operator" is not defined by Appellants, and therefore Xavier's mention of an "application provider" controlling application servers (Xavier ,r 91) teaches the claimed "single provider." Yet, as Appellants point out, the Specification gives examples of an IMS network operator being a telecommunications carrier such as Sprint Verizon, or AT&T. Spec. ,r 91. We agree with Appellants that an application provider such as Skype cannot reasonably be characterized as the single operator of the network here, because such an interpretation would be inconsistent with the network "operator" described in the Specification. Therefore, on this record, the Examiner has not shown sufficiently how Xavier teaches disputed limitation. Because this issue is dispositive, we need not reach Appellants' other arguments. Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 23, or of independent claims 1, 14, and 33--41, which recite commensurate limitations (e.g., "redirecting registration of the UE for the IMS session from the application server to the selected different application server" where the respective application servers "are configured to provide IMS service on behalf of the single operator," as recited in independent claim 14 and similarly recited in independent claims 34, 37 and 40). See App. Br. 14. The pending dependent claims stand with their respective independent claims, and the 4 Appeal2018---003620 Application 13/893,662 Examiner does not find that the additional references cure the deficiencies discussed above. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-14 and 16-43 is reversed. REVERSED 5