Ex Parte Vrbaski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 30, 201713275762 (P.T.A.B. May. 30, 2017) Copy Citation 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. 13/275,762 10/18/2011 Mira Vrbaski ALC 3761 8387 76614 7590 06/01/2017 Terry W. Kramer, Esq. Kramer & Amado, P.C. 330 John Carlyle Street 3rd Floor Alexandria, VA 22314 EXAMINER KAUR, PAMIT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/01/2017 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): mail@krameramado.com ipsnarocp @ nokia. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MIRA VRBASKI, LUI CHU YEUNG, ROBERT A. MANN, SACHIN J. LALSETA, HAIQING MA, PARTOO MOHEBI-SARMADI, and KALYAN PREMCHAND SIDDAM Appeal 2016-007802 Application 13/275,7621 Technology Center 2400 Before ERIC S. FRAHM, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4—14, and 16—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Alcatel-Lucent. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2016-007802 Application 13/275,762 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Claimed Invention The claimed invention relates to telecommunications networks, and particularly, to a method of determining by a network node whether a session establishment request is for a subscriber of a home network. Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 13 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows: 1. A method of determining, by a policy and rules charging node (PCRN), whether a session establishment request is for a subscriber of a home network, the method comprising: defining a home network identity including at least one network identifier used by the home network and at least one emergency access point name (APN); receiving a session establishment request; comparing a called station ID of the session establishment request with the at least one emergency APN of the home network identity; comparing a subscription ID of the session establishment request with the at least one network identifier; and if either the called station ID matches the at least one emergency APN or the subscription ID matches the at least one network identifier: determining that the subscriber is a subscriber of the home network; and fulfilling the session establishment request. App. Br. 12 (Claims App’x.) (emphasis added). The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 8, 12, and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Edge et al. (US 2007/0060097 Al; Mar. 15, 2007) (“Edge”), Betti et al. (US 2012/0284775 2 Appeal 2016-007802 Application 13/275,762 Al; Nov. 8, 2012) (“Betti”), and Yan (US 2006/0080486 Al; Apr. 13, 2006). Final Act. 2-4. Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Edge, Betti, Yan, and Patel (US 2012/0083240 Al; Apr. 5, 2012). Final Act. 4—5. Claims 2 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Edge, Betti, Yan, and Kamm et al. (US 5,457,680; Oct. 10, 1995). Final Act. 5. Claims 4, 6, 7, 9-11, 16, 18, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Edge, Betti, Yan, and Andreasen et al. (US 2011/0103266 Al; May 5, 2011) (“Andreasen”). Final Act. 5-7.2 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41,37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis. 2 Although we discern no express “objection” in the record, the Examiner finds the limitations recited in dependent claims 3 and 15 constitute allowable subject matter (if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of their respective base claims). Final Act. 7—8. These claims are not part of the appeal, and accordingly, we do not consider them. 3 Appeal 2016-007802 Application 13/275,762 Rejection of Claims 1, 8, 12, and 13 Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches “defining a home network identity including at least one network identifier used by the home network and at least one emergency access point name (APN),” as recited in claim l.3 4App. Br. 6-7 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 1—2. Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Edge teaches a “network identifier” and an “emergency access point name,” arguing the passage cited by the Examiner teaches “different manners for different types of access [namely, GPRS access and 3GPP WLAN access]” and that these different types are “not perform[ed]... at the same time.” Id. We disagree. As the Examiner finds, Edge teaches defining an identity including (i) a unique “network identifier” and (ii) a “WLAN APN (W-APN) for emergency services.” Ans. 2—3; Edge 1115. These identifiers are used “[f]or 3GPP WLAN access.” Edge 1115. Appellants, therefore, do not persuade us that the identifiers taught in Edge are mutually exclusive or otherwise inconsistent with claim 1. Moreover, the “network identifier” recited in claim 1 is not materially limited in the Specification. Although the Specification describes several examples of “network identifiers” including a “domain name,” “mobile country code,” and “mobile network code,” these examples are described as non-limiting. Spec. H 8—9. Accordingly, giving the claim elements their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification, as we must, see In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 3 Appellants argue claims 1, 8, 12, and 13 as a group, and we choose claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). 4 Appeal 2016-007802 Application 13/275,762 2004), we discern no error in the Examiner’s mapping of the identifiers taught in Edge to the “network identifier” and “emergency access point name” recited in claim 1. Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches “comparing . . . with the at least one emergency APN” and “comparing . . . with the at least one network identifier” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 2—3. These arguments, however, are redundant to the argument discussed above, in that Appellants simply disagree with the Examiner’s finding of “network identifier” and “emergency access point name” in the prior art. Id. For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, 12, and 13 as unpatentable over Edge, Betti, and Yan. Rejections of the Remaining Claims The remaining claims 2, 4—7, 9-11, 14, and 16—19 all are dependent, and rejected as unpatentable over Edge, Betti, Yan, and additional references. With respect to each obviousness rejection, Appellants argue the additional cited references “fail[] to remedy the deficiencies” of the rejection of the independent claims. App. Br. 8—10. Because we discern no error in the Examiner’s rejection of the independent claims, we are unpersuaded of error in the rejections of the remaining dependent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejections of the remaining claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 2, 4—14, and 16—19. 5 Appeal 2016-007802 Application 13/275,762 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation