Ex Parte Vrbaski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2017

13275762 (P.T.A.B. May. 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.
13/275,762 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