Ex Parte Durecu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2016

12520603 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/520,603 03/03/2010
48116 7590
FAY SHARPE/LUCENT
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843
01/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Olivier Durecu
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.
LUTZ 201028US01 1225
EXAMINER
PERSAUD, AMARNAUTH G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
01/05/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVIER DURECU and PA TRICK LEGRAND
Appeal2014-001494
Application 12/520,603
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, NATHAN A. ENGELS,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1--4, 6, and 7. 1 Claim 5 is cancelled. We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. (App.
Br. 1.)
Appeal2014-001494
Application 12/520,603
THE INVENTION
Appellants' invention is directed to adaptation of the routing of the
communications of a customer within an IMS (Internet Protocol Multimedia
Subsystem) type network. (Abstract; Spec. 2.) Claim 1, reproduced below,
is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for adapting routing of communications from a
customer within an IMS (Internet Protocol Multimedia
Subsystem) type network, said method comprising:
receiving additional routing rules for the customer;
retrieving routing rules for the customer defined by an
IMS network operator from an information storage device
storing a customer profile containing the standard routing rules;
concatenating said additional routing rules with the
routing rules defined by the IMS network operator, wherein the
customer profile is modified when saved by concatenation of
the routing rules defined by the IMS network operator with the
additional routing rules so as to enable the IMS network
operator to process the concatenated routing rules together and
such concatenated routing rules are subsequently available for
use by the IMS network to adapt the routing of the customer's
communications as a function of their needs, the subsequent use
of the concatenated routing rules comprising the enabling of at
least one additional routing rule, the disabling of at least one
additional routing rule, or the modification of at least one
additional routing rule.
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1--4 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Isomaki et al. (US 2003/0179762 Al, pub. Sep. 25,
2003), and Fikouras et al. (US 2010/0030905 Al, pub. Feb. 4, 2010). (Final
Act. 3-7.)
2
Appeal2014-001494
Application 12/520,603
The Examiner rejected claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Isomaki, Fikouras, and Shtiegman et al. (US 2008/002820
Al, pub. Jan. 3, 2008). (Final Act. 7-8.)
ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief present the
following issue: 2
Whether the combination of Isomaki and Fikouras teaches or suggests
the independent claim 1 limitation:
concatenating said additional routing rules with the routing
rules defined by the IMS network operator, wherein the
customer profile is modified when saved by concatenation of
the routing rules defined by the IMS network operator with the
additional routing rules so as to enable the IMS network
operator to process the concatenated routing rules together and
such concatenated routing rules are subsequently available for
use by the Il\1S netv,rork to adapt the routing of the customer's
communications as a function of their needs ....
(referred to herein as the "concatenating limitation"), and the similar
limitation recited in independent claim 7. (App. Br. 6-12.)
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and positions of the
Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed May 10, 2013), Reply Brief
(filed Nov. 12, 2013), Final Office Action (mailed Oct. 23, 2012), and the
Examiner's Answer (mailed Sept. 11, 2013) for the respective details.
3
Appeal2014-001494
Application 12/520,603
arguments, and adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-8);
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 7-10), and concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We emphasize the following.
Appellants argue:
Fikouras does not relate to concatenation but to real-time
updates of the full user profile ....
Fikouras updates the rules stored in the HSS whereas the
exemplary embodiment concatenates two kinds of rules at the
S-CSCF level for a given IMS session (this concatenation is
only available for a session and does not exist the next time the
user reconnects).
(App. Br. 8-9.) The Examiner responds:
Isomaki teaches "routing of the intended session toward the
final destination depends on the address information in
messages 2, 5 and []the service rules provided by service
platform 8 and user profile" where the processing of a plurality
of rules . . . determine[ s] where to route the session. Isomaki
further teaches in par. 31 subsequently processing the session
based on information (i.e. subscriber profile and service type).
In addition Fikouras teaches in par. 59, 60 storing sets of rules
(initial Filter Criteria) at a network node where these rules are
used to make routing decisions for incoming messages ....
Fikouras teaches in par. 59, 60 and further in par. 66 storing
routing rules. In particular, par. 59 teaches updating a customer
profile (subscriber profile) which has been modified (updated).
Further par. 59 teaches storing a plurality of rules (set of initial
Filter Criteria) for determining routing decisions, where the
plurality of rules taken together [is] interpreted as being
concatenated.
4
Appeal2014-001494
Application 12/520,603
(Ans. 8 (emphasis omitted).) We are not persuaded that the Examiner's
construction of "concatenation" is unreasonable, and therefore we are not
persuaded that the Examiner errs in finding that Isomaki and Fikouras teach
or suggest the concatenating limitation. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Consistent with the Examiner's construction,
Appellants' Specification states "the routing rules 1 generated by the IFC
criteria are collected by the S-CSCF (Service-Call Session Control Function)
function of the IMS network, and the concatenation of the routing rules 1, 2
can be performed as part of this function" (Spec. 5), and we are unpersuaded
that the claim language viewed in light of Appellants' Specification would
exclude the combined teachings of Isomaki and Fikouras as suggested by the
Examiner. The skilled artisan would "be able to fit the teachings of multiple
patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person
of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21.
Appellants do not present evidence that the resulting arrangements were
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v.
Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550
U.S. at 418-19).
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the obviousness rejection
over Isomaki and Fikouras of independent claims 1 and 7. We also sustain
the obviousness rejection over Isomaki and Fikouras of claims 2--4; and the
5
Appeal2014-001494
Application 12/520,603
obviousness rejection over Isomaki, Fikouras, and Shtiegman of claim 6,
which rejections are not argued separately with particularity.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 6, and 7 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
sl
6