TELEFONAKTIEBOLAGET LM ERICSSON (PUBL)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 9, 2021

2019005553 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2021)

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.
14/407,145 12/11/2014 Hans Eriksson 1009-1211 / P42865 US1 9411
102721 7590 03/09/2021
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
ZHANG, RUIHUA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2021 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS ERIKSSON
Appeal 2019-005553
Application 14/407,145
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–29. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-005553
Application 14/407,145

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a method and a device in an Evolved
Packet System (EPS) communications network of facilitating re-establishing
of a failed communications session undertaken via a plurality of EPS nodes.
Spec. 1:3–5.
Representative Claim
Representative claim 16 under appeal read as follows;
16. A method, in an Evolved Packet System (EPS)
communications network, of facilitating reestablishing of a
failed communications session with a user equipment (UE) and
undertaken via a plurality of EPS nodes, the method
comprising:
acquiring stateful session data of each of the plurality of
EPS nodes involved in the communication session with the UE;
combining the acquired stateful session data of each of
the plurality of EPS nodes into stateful session data common to
the plurality of EPS nodes;
associating the common stateful session data with a
communication session identifier and an identifier of each of
the plurality of EPS nodes involved in the communication
session with the UE; and
storing the common stateful session data and the
identifiers in a database accessible to each of the plurality of
EPS nodes, for re-establishment by the plurality of EPS nodes
of the communications session with the UE from the common
stateful session data in case of failure of the communications
session with the UE.
Rejection
Claims 16–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Janakiraman (US 2014/0344441 A1; pub. Nov. 20, 2014)
Appeal 2019-005553
Application 14/407,145

3
and Bonnier (US 2012/0134259 A1; pub. May 31, 2012). See Final Act. 3–
16.
OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
light of Appellant’s contentions and the evidence of record. We agree with
the Examiner and highlight the following for emphasis.
Claim 16
The Examiner found Janakiraman discloses all the elements of
independent claim 16 except for the following elements:
facilitating re-establishing of a failed communications session
with a user equipment (UE) and undertaken via a plurality of
EPS nodes, and
storing the common stateful session data and the identifiers in a
database accessible to each of the plurality of EPS nodes, for re-
establishment by the plurality of EPS nodes of the
communications session with the UE from the common stateful
session data in case of failure of communication session with
the UE.
Final Act. 4. The Examiner further found Bonnier teaches these elements.
See Final Act. 4–6.
More specifically, the Examiner found Bonnier discloses a Long Term
Evolution (LTE) system including a plurality of Evolved Packet System
nodes, where a packet data network gateway (PDN-GW) pool 102 is
coupled to a serving gateway (SGW) pool 103, and where each of the PDN-
GWs serves a plurality of active UE sessions. See Ans. 4 (citing Bonnier
¶ 40, Figs. 1A, 1B, 3–7). As illustrated in Figure 7 of Bonnier, each PDN-
GW (or SGW as illustrated in Figure 8) includes a memory 730 to store
session information, and a resilience module 716 coupled to the memory 730
Appeal 2019-005553
Application 14/407,145

4
to store and maintain the active UE sessions, such as on a first PDN-GW
102A. See Ans. 4; see also Bonnier ¶¶ 62, 63. The session resilience
module 716 is configured to receive information corresponding to UE
sessions, and further configured to store the active UE session information
and periodically transmit the active UE session information to one of the
other PDN-GWs 102B–102D that are acting as standby PDN-GWs. See
Ans. 4 (citing Bonnier ¶ 63). In case of a failure of either a PDN-GW or
SGW (or both), the session resilience module 716 illustrated in Figure 7 (or
the session resilience module 818 in Figure 8) can activate any standby UE
sessions that are associated with an active UE session on the failed PDN-
GW. See Ans. 4 (citing Bonnier ¶¶ 64, 66). The Examiner further found it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time
of the claimed invention, to include the teachings of Bonnier described
above within the disclosure of Janakiraman. See Final Act. 6 (citing Bonnier
¶ 4).
Appellant contends “Bonnier does not disclose or suggest the use of a
database that is accessible to each of the plurality of EPS nodes involved in
the communications session with the UE” because “each of the plurality of
EPS nodes” requires each of a PDN-GW, SGW, and MME disclosed in
Bonnier, and none of the session resilience modules contained within each
of these EPS nodes “contains a database that is accessible to other types of
nodes, i.e., to the ‘plurality of EPS nodes involved in the communication
session with the UE.’” See Appeal Br. 8–13 (emphasis original). This
argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of
claim 16. More specifically, claim 16 recites “[a] plurality of EPS nodes
involved in [a] communication session with [a] UE.” Neither the claim, nor
Appeal 2019-005553
Application 14/407,145

5
Appellant’s Specification, defines which set of EPS nodes constitutes the
claimed “plurality of EPS nodes.” Thus, the claimed “plurality of EPS
nodes” reads on Bonnier’s PDN-GWs 102B–102D, and, Bonnier’s
transmission of active UE session information to one of the other PDN-GWs
102B–102D teaches or suggests the claimed “storing the common stateful
session data and the identifiers in a database accessible to each of the
plurality of EPS nodes.”
Even assuming arguendo that the claimed “plurality of EPS nodes”
must require each of a PDN-GW, a SGW, and a MME, Appellant does not
persuade us that configuring the session resilience module to transmit the
session data to a different configuration of EPS nodes (such as an MME, a
PDN-GW, and an SGW) would be beyond the skill of a person of ordinary
skill in the relevant art. This is because Bonnier discloses a session
resilience module can be stored within a MME, a PDN-GW, a SGW, or any
such combination of the aforementioned EPS nodes, and further discloses
that each session resilience module is configured to transmit session data to
one or more other EPS nodes. See Bonnier ¶¶ 45, 63, 68, Figs. 1A, 7, and 8.
The mere existence of differences between the prior art and the claim does
not establish non-obviousness. See Dann v. Johnston, 425 U.S. 219, 230
(1976). Instead, the relevant question is “whether the difference between the
prior art and the subject matter in question is a [difference] sufficient to
render the claimed subject matter unobvious to one skilled in the applicable
art.” Dann, 425 U.S. at 228 (internal quotations and citations omitted).
Indeed, the Supreme Court made clear that when considering obviousness,
“the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific
subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
Appeal 2019-005553
Application 14/407,145

6
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
employ.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellant also contends that Bonnier’s disclosure that the session
resilience module 716 periodically transmits the active UE session
information to the other PDN-GWs 102B–102D does not teach or suggest
that the memory 730 of session resilience module 716 is “accessible” to each
of the other PDN-GWs, as required by the claim, because the other PDN-
GWs cannot access the memory of session resilience module itself; the other
PDN-GWs can only access the active UE session information stored in the
memory and provided by the session resilience module. See Appeal Br. 13–
16. This argument is not persuasive, as neither Appellant’s claim, nor
Appellant’s Specification, provides a definition of “accessible” that excludes
Bonnier’s disclosure of the session resilience module 716 periodically
transmitting the active UE session information to the other PDN-GWs
102B–102D. As the Examiner found, the active UE session information
stored with memory 730 is periodically transmitted to the other PDN-GWs
102B–102D, and, thus, the memory 730 is “accessible” to the other PDN-
GWs 102B–102D. See Ans. 9 (“this provides the evidence or proof of the
UE session information stored in memory [730] is “accessible”, and the
evidence of the data accessible from each of plurality of EPS nodes”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Janakiraman and Bonnier teaches or suggests all the
elements of claim 16.
Claims 22 and 29
The Examiner made findings regarding claims 22 and 29 that are
substantially similar to the findings regarding claim 16. See Final Act. 8–10,
Appeal 2019-005553
Application 14/407,145

7
13–16. With respect to these claims, Appellant did not present separate
arguments. See Appeal Br. 16. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 22 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for reasons substantially similar to
the reasons why we sustain the rejection of claim 16, as previously described
above.
Claims 17–21 and 23–28
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 17–21 and
23–28. See Appeal Br. 16. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims
17–21 and 23–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Conclusion
For at least the above reasons, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Janakiraman and Bonnier teaches or suggests all the
elements of the claims. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 16–29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in light of Janakiraman and Bonnier.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–29 103 Janakiraman,
Bonnier
16–29

Appeal 2019-005553
Application 14/407,145

8
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED