Ex Parte Hsu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 31, 2013

10059736 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 31, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte RAYMOND T. HSU, AN MEI CHEN, JUN WANG,
NIKOLAI K.N. LEUNG, NILESHKUMAR J. PAREKH, and
RAGULAN SINNARAJAH
____________________

Appeal 2011-001840
Application 10/059,736
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001840
Application 10/059,736

2
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 14-18, 27-29, and 32-44. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

Introduction
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a method and
apparatus for negotiation of transmission parameters for broadcast/multicast
services. Spec. ¶ [1002].

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Exemplary Claim
Claims 27 and 36, reproduced below, are exemplary of the claimed
subject matter:
27. In a communication system supporting broadcast
services, a method comprising:
establishing a PPP session between a mobile station and a
first infrastructure element;
the first infrastructure element sending a query for
capability information for a first broadcast service to a first
group of infrastructure elements;
the first infrastructure element receiving a response from
at least one infrastructure element of the first group; and
the first infrastructure element sending the capability
information to the mobile station.

Appeal 2011-001840
Application 10/059,736

3
36. A method for providing capability information for a
broadcast service or multicast service to a mobile station, the
method comprising:
establishing, by a first Packet Data Server Node (PDSN)
of a plurality of PDSNs in a carrier access network, a Point-to-
Point Protocol (PPP) session with a mobile station requesting a
broadcast/multicast service wherein the first PDSN is not
configured to support a broadcast/multicast service request by
the mobile station;
receiving, by the first PDSN in a Multi-Channel Flow
Treatment Protocol (MCFTP), via the PPP session, a query
from the mobile station for capability information for the
requested broadcast/multicast service;
transmitting, by the first PDSN in response to the query
and via an Inter-PDSN protocol, a request for the capability
information related to the requested broadcast/multicast service
to one or more of the plurality of PDSNs;
receiving, at the first PDSN, the capability information
related to the requested broadcast/multicast service from a
second PDSN of the plurality of PDSNs, wherein the second
PDSN supports the requested broadcast/Multicast service; and
communicating, by the first PDSN in MCFTP via the
PPP session, the capability information to the mobile station.

References
Bertrand
Le
US 6,876,640
US 7,031,736
Apr. 5, 2005
Apr. 18, 2006

Rejections
Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 8-11, 14-18, 27-29, and 32-44 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bertrand and Le. Ans. 4-8.

Appeal 2011-001840
Application 10/059,736

4
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 36 and Dependent Claims 37 and 38
The Examiner finds the combination of Bertrand and Le teaches each
element of Appellants’ claim 36. Ans. 4-5, 9. Specifically, the Examiner
finds that the PPP context negotiated between the first PDSN and the mobile
station teaches communication between a first and second PDSN. Ans. 10.
The Examiner also finds Bertrand’s handover process teaches the claimed
transmission of a request for capability information from one PDSN to other
PDSN(s) via an Inter-PDSN protocol. Ans. 9-10 (citing Bertrand 4:49-55).
The Examiner further points out that the claims do not recite or require the
transmission of the request from the first PDSN to one or more PDSNs to be
a direct transmission. Ans. 10.
Appellants argue the combination of Bertrand and Le does not teach
“transmitting, by the first PDSN in response to the query and via an Inter-
PDSN protocol, a request for the capability information related to the
requested broadcast/multicast service to one or more of the plurality of
PDSNs,” as recited in claim 36. Appellants assert the combination of
Bertrand and Le does not teach multicast or broadcast services at all and that
Bertrand’s establishment of PPP context between a mobile station and a
PDSN is not the same as transmitting a request for capability information
between PDSNs. App. Br. 19-22. Appellants further argue the combination
of Bertrand and Le does not teach transmission from a first PDSN to other
PDSNs (either directly or indirectly) “via an Inter-PDSN protocol,” as
recited in claim 36, because Bertrand does not teach transmitting a request
for capability information from a first PDSN to a second PDSN (and
Appeal 2011-001840
Application 10/059,736

5
subsequently receiving at the first PDSN the capability information from the
second PDSN). App. Br. 19, 22-24; Reply 3.
While we agree with the Examiner that the claims do not require a
direct transmission, we do not see a teaching in Bertrand of transmitting a
request for capability information from a first PDSN to one or more PDSNs.
It appears the Examiner is interpreting the transmission of the PPP context
information from the first PDSN to a PPP register, where the information
can then be sent to a second PDSN as the transmission of a request for
capability information from one PDSN to another. However, in the
identified portion of Bertrand, the first PDSN is sending capability
information (or PPP context information), rather than a request for capability
information, to a second PDSN. It is the second PDSN that is transmitting a
request for capability information. However, the second PDSN sends the
request to the PPP register in Bertrand; the second PDSN does not send a
request, directly or indirectly, to another PDSN. Therefore, based on the
evidence and findings before us, we are constrained to reverse the rejection
of claim 36, as well as the rejection of claim 39 which contains a similar
limitation.
Because we agree with one of Appellants’ contentions regarding
independent claim 36, we do not reach Appellants’ additional arguments.
Dependent claims 37 and 38 and dependent claims 40 and 41 ultimately
depend from claims 36 and 39, respectively, and thus incorporate the
limitations present in their respective independent claims. Therefore, we do
not sustain the rejection of claims 37, 38, 40, and 41 for the same reasons as
discussed above.

Appeal 2011-001840
Application 10/059,736

6
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 14-18, 27-29, 32-35, and 39-44
Initially, we note that Appellants’ arguments relating to
communication between PDSNs is not applicable to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11,
14-18, 27-29, 32-35, and 39-44 because these claims do not recite
“transmitting, by the first PDSN in response to the query and via an Inter-
PDSN protocol, a request for the capability information related to the
requested broadcast/multicast service to one or more of the plurality of
PDSNs,” or a commensurate limitation.
Appellants also argue the PPP context information does not meet the
recited “capability information.” App. Br. 20-22; Reply 2. Appellants
describe capability of a broadcast service as the “transmission parameters,”
which “may include the type of header compression used . . . or may include
any parameters used by the PDSN 110 and the MS 102, which may not
necessarily be used by intervening system elements.” Spec. ¶ [1034].
Similarly, the PPP context information in Bertrand “includes several sever
sub-protocols, each of which can include parameters such as, for example,
compression, encryption, or character escaping.” Bertrand 3:3-5.
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Bertrand teaches
sending a request for PPP context information from a PDSN to one or more
PPP registers. Moreover, the Examiner relies upon Le for teaching receiving
capability information for a broadcast service from a mobile station. Ans. 4.
Therefore, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ distinction between the
recited capability information and the teachings of the combination of
Bertrand and Le and sustain the rejection of claim 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-11, 14-18, 27-
29, 32-35, and 39-44.

Appeal 2011-001840
Application 10/059,736

7
Dependent Claim 2
Finally, Appellants argue dependent claim 2 is patentable over the
combination of Bertrand and Le for the additional reason that the
combination does not teach “wherein the capability information comprises
header compression information and the mapping between BCMCS_ID and
IP multicast address,” as recited in dependent claim 2. App. Br. 19, 24-25.
Appellants also argue nothing in the Examiner’s rejection or the cited
references teaches including a mapping between a BCMCS_ID and an IP
multicast address as part of the capability information. Reply 3.
The Examiner finds that it would be obvious to use a BCMCS
interface in CDMA2000 networks. Ans. 10 (“[I]f CDMA2000 is to be used,
it is implicit that BCMCS be applied.”). The Examiner also finds
“CDMA2000 also allows a mobile device to maintain its IP address, even
when it changes PDSNs,” which requires tracking/mapping IP addresses
between PDSNs. Ans. 10-11. The Examiner then finds that including the
BCMCS_ID and IP address in the session information is how Le
accomplishes the tracking. Ans. 11.
We agree with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner has not
provided a finding that the combination of Bertrand and Le teaches the
capability information including the mapping between a BCMCS_ID and an
IP address. Therefore, based on the evidence before us, we are constrained to
reverse the rejection of claim 2.
Appeal 2011-001840
Application 10/059,736

8

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 8-
11, 14-18, 27-29, 32-35, and 42-44 is affirmed and the Examiner’s rejection
of claims 2 and 36-41 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

msc