Ex Parte Vrbaski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 12, 2016

13157888 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/157,888 06/10/2011 76614 7590 Terry W, Kramer, Esq, Kramer & Amado, P.C. 330 John Carlyle Street 3rd Floor Alexandria, VA 22314 04/14/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mira Vrbaski 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 3716 8167 EXAMINER HUSSAIN, TAUQIR ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2446 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/14/2016 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 MIRA VRBASKI, COLIN L. KAHN, MARK A. SMITH, EDWARD GRINSHPUN, and SANKARANARAYANANSATHYANARAYAN Appeal2014-006806 Application 13/157,888 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal2014-006806 Application 13/157,888 INVENTION The invention is directed to providing cost information related to network congestion on a wireless network. (Spec. i-fi-f l-3.) Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below: 1. A method performed by a network platform, the method comprising: receiving a subscriber ID, associated base station ID, and application IDs from a user equipment, each application ID identifying an application used by the user equipment and associated with an application node; receiving network congestion information from a network monitor; identifying an application affected by the network congestion; calculating a cost to the identified application due to the network congestion; and notifying the identified application node associated with the application of the calculated cost. Kagimoto Andreasen Momtahan REFERENCES US 2008/0102853 Al US 2009/0109845 Al US 2011/0276442 Al REJECTIONS AT ISSUE May 1, 2008 Apr. 30, 2009 Nov. 10, 2011 Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Andreasen and Momtahan. (Final Act. 2--4.) Claims 4--8, 12, 13, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Andreasen, Momtahan, and Kagimoto. (Final Act. 4-- 6.) 2 Appeal2014-006806 Application 13/157,888 ISSUES Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Andreasen and Momtahan teaches or suggests "calculating a cost to the identified application due to the network congestion" as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 14? Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Andreasen and Momtahan teaches or suggests "notifying the identified application node associated with the application of the calculated cost" as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 9 and 14? ANALYSIS We select claims 1, 9, and 14 as representative of the group of claims comprising claims 1-21 as Appellants have not argued any of the other claims in this group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claims 1, 9, and 14 recite "calculate[ing] a cost to the identified application due to the network congestion." The Examiner finds Andreasen paragraph 48 teaches calculating a cost due to network congestion. (Ans. 3; Final Act. 3.) Appellants argue neither Andreasen nor Momtahan calculates a cost as claimed. (App. Br. 6.) Specifically, Appellants argue it is unreasonable to redefine a differentiated services code point (DSCP) value or QoS as the recited calculated costs. (App. Br. 7 .) The Examiner finds the QoS packages and DSCP values are directly proportional to "calculating a cost" and is consistent with the specification and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. (Ans. 3.) The Examiner cites specification paragraph 34. (Ans. 2.) Appellants argue 3 Appeal2014-006806 Application 13/157,888 the Examiner has taken an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim language. (Reply Br. 3.) We are unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred by considering the level of QoS and DSCP values as a calculated cost as recited by claims 1, 9, and 14. (See Ans. 3.) Specification paragraph 34 provides examples of "cost" stating "[t]he cost may actually be calculated based upon a currency value or may simply be a numeric metric that will, for example, allow for comparison to thresholds and other values" (emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner that QoS packages and DSCP values are metrics which allow for comparison to thresholds and other values. (See Ans. 2-3.) We further agree with the Examiner that the claim language does not define what basis or factors are involved in calculating a cost as claimed. (See Ans. 3.) Therefore there are no basis or factors to distinguish the cost as claimed from the QoS and DSCP data values. For at least these reasons the DSCP value taught by Andreasen paragraph 48 is within the scope of a calculated "cost" as recited by claims 1, 8, and 14. Claims 1, 9, and 14 recite "notify[ing] the [identified] application node associated with the [] application of the calculated cost." The Examiner finds Momtahan paragraph 68 teaches "in order to prevent 'bill shock' due to exceeding data quotas and in order to extend usage control to subscribers, ... provide proactive notifications to user equipment 102 when subscribers are nearing bandwidth usage thresholds or data roaming charge limits in roamed network service provider 230." (Ans. 4.) Appellants argue that neither a "DSCP value" nor a "bandwidth threshold" would be seen as a calculated cost as recited in claims 1, 9, and 14. (App. Br. 7.) For the same reasons as discussed above we are 4 Appeal2014-006806 Application 13/157,888 unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred by considering the level of QoS and DSCP values as a calculated cost as recited by claims 1, 9, and 14. (See Ans. 3.) Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Momtahan paragraph 68 teaches notifying subscribers of cost information "to prevent 'bill shock.'" (See Ans. 3--4.) For the reasons supra, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21. DECISION The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5