Ex Parte Deen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2018

14388984 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/388,984 10/22/2014
102721 7590 07/18/2018
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lucien Deen
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.
1009-1088 / P35 ll 4 US 1 9212
EXAMINER
THIEU, BENJAMIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2441
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/18/2018 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LUCIEN DEEN and
SERGIO BRUNO LA VRADOR DE ABREU
Appeal2018-000206
Application 14/388,984 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
1 According to Appellants the real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson (publ).
Appeal2018-000206
Application 14/3 88,984
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 15-28, constituting all claims pending in the
current application. App. Br. 2. Claims 1-14 have been canceled. Id. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a method, system, and device for
requesting access information of a party in a telecommunications network.
Spec. 1. Claim 15, reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
15. A method of requesting access information of a party in a
telecommunications network, said party having access information
comprising communication capabilities said party is able to handle,
and wherein said party is registered with a unique identity and at least
one network contact address at a server, said method comprising:
initiating, by an entity in said network, a contact request to said
server for at least one network contact address of said party, said
contact request comprising information representing said identity of
said party;
receiving a token, by said entity, from said server, said token
comprising said at least one network contact address of said party;
2
Appeal2018-000206
Application 14/3 88,984
initiating, by said entity, an access request to said party for
retrieving said access information using said at least one network
contact address of said party comprised by said token; and
receiving, by said entity, access information from said party in
response to said access request.
REJECTIONS
Claims 15-28 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Lee et al. (US 6,161,008; issued Dec. 12, 2000)
("Lee").
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 23, and 25
Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Lee discloses
"initiating, by said entity, an access request to said party for retrieving said
access information using said at least one network contact address of said
party comprised by said token" and "receiving, by said entity, access
information from said party in response to said access request," as recited in
independent claim 15 and commensurately recited in independent claims 23
and 25?
Appellants argue
once Lee's PMDNS user application (entity) requests and
receives the TID (token), it does not use the TID's email
address ( or anything else that can be equated to a user network
contact address in the TID) to then request and receive access
information from the user (party). Instead, the PMDNS user
application simply sends the user's email message to the TID
email address.
3
Appeal2018-000206
Application 14/3 88,984
App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, "while Lee's user application
(entity) requests a TID (a token), Lee's user application does not then initiate
an access request to a party to retrieve access information, and does not
receive access from the party in response to the access request." App. Br.
10.
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner finds "[ w ]hen a TID is
requested, the TID can be used to determine personal information data, i.e.
email address, phone number, etc. and preference setting" and "[t]he
PMDNS user application util[ z Jes the received TIDS to establish[]
communication sessions with other applications or gateways based on the
access information, i.e. personal information data, i.e. email address, phone
number, etc., preference settings, or terminal capabilities, that are all stored
and tracked on the PMDNS server database." Ans. 3, 4. The Examiner
further finds "[t]he PID is mapped to a particular TID, the server uses the
PID to obtain the type of TID information. Therefore, causing the server to
use the received PID and the obtain type of TID to establish a connection
between the users, i.e. email, voice calls, etc." Ans. 4 (emphasis omitted).
Lee describes a terminal address (TID) that corresponds to a called
user based upon a personal identifier (PID) of the user. Lee Abstract. For
example, an email address or phone number may be a PID. Lee col. 5, 11.
35-38. The TID is a unique address for each terminal. Lee col. 5, 11. 38-60.
A PID is assigned to each user and serves as a thread to a group of terminals
owned by the user, each terminal identified by TID. Lee col. 5, 11. 28-32,
col. 11, 1. 33-35. A user application receives a request from a calling user
that includes the PID of the called user. Lee Abstract, Fig. 5. A server
application is coupled to the user application and includes a plurality of user
4
Appeal2018-000206
Application 14/3 88,984
records indexed by PID. Lee Abstract, Fig. 4. The user record includes a
plurality of terminal records, as well as a network usage profile for the user,
a historical usage table for the user, and a user profile for the user that may
indicate preferences regarding delivery of communications. Lee Abstract,
col. 2, 11. 56-67, Fig. 4. The user terminal queries the server for one or more
TIDs corresponding to the PID. Lee col. 5, 11. 62---66, col. 15, 1. 18---65. The
server application accesses the user record for the called user based on the
PID and returns the respective TID to the user application based on
intelligent network routing decisions, in order to reach the user at the
appropriate terminal. Lee Abstract, col. 5, 11. 65-6, 11. 9. The user
application may then establish a connection with the called user's TID. Lee
col. 15, 11. 50---65, Fig. 5.
We do not see, and the Examiner has not sufficiently explained how
Lee discloses, "initiating, by said entity, an access request to said party for
retrieving said access information using said at least one network contact
address of said party comprised by said token," and "receiving, by said
entity, access information from said party in response to said access
request." In Lee, the user application requests and receives the TID from the
server application and requests a connection based on that information.
However, we do not see, and the Examiner has not explained, where the user
application requests and receives access information from the called user
(i.e. a party). Even assuming arguendo the personal information the
Examiner cites to in Lee corresponds to the claimed access information, the
user application does not request and receive this personal information from
the called user (i.e. a party).
5
Appeal2018-000206
Application 14/3 88,984
Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments
advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other
arguments. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 15-28.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 15-28 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
REVERSED
6