Ex Parte Kalliokulju et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 10, 2007

09757913 (B.P.A.I. May. 10, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE

__________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________

Ex parte JUHA KALLIOKULJU, ATTE LANSISALMI,
YOUSUF SAIFULLAH, and KHIEM LE
__________

Appeal 2007-0834
Application 09/757,913
Technology Center 2100
__________

Decided: May 10, 2007
__________

Before JOHN C. MARTIN, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, and
ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-21.
THE INVENTION
The disclosed invention generally relates to relocating context
information in header compression. More particularly, the disclosed
Appeal 2007-0834
Application 09/757,913

2
invention is based on the idea that the context updating of the compressor
and decompressor is stopped in both the mobile terminal and the old
network entity, which ensures that both the mobile terminal and the old
network entity use the same context, after which a snapshot of the
compression and decompression context information is taken in the old
network entity and transmitted to the new network entity to be stored
therein. The mobile compressor compresses at least one header of at least
one packet with the said context information and transmits the compressed at
least one header of at least one packet to the new network entity. Then the
new network entity decompresses the received at least one packet of the at
least one header with the stored decompression context information.
Because the context information has not changed during the relocation
process, the compressor of the mobile terminal and the decompressor of the
new network entity are automatically in synchronism and the data transfer
can be continued (Specification 1 and 4).
Representative claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method of relocating the header compression context in a
packet network which transmits packets having compressed headers,
said method comprising:

establishing a connection between a mobile terminal and a
first network entity including storing context information used with
compression and decompression of the headers of the packets at
the mobile terminal and the first network entity;

stopping the context information updating in the mobile terminal and
in the first network entity;

Appeal 2007-0834
Application 09/757,913

3
taking a snapshot of the compression and decompression context
information in the first network entity including storing said
context information snapshot in the first network entity; and

changing the connection between the first network entity and the
mobile terminal to a connection between the mobile terminal and a second
network entity including transferring the context information snapshot stored
by the first network entity to the second network entity which is stored by
the second network entity as the context information of the second network
entity and using the stored context information at the mobile terminal and
the second network entity for compression and decompression of
the headers of the packets.

THE REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references as evidence of
unpatentability:
Chen US 6,529,527 B1 Mar. 4, 2003
Maggenti US 6,477,150 B1 Nov. 5, 2002

THE REJECTION
The following rejection is on appeal before us:
1. Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the teachings of Chen in view of Maggenti.

Rather than repeat the arguments of Appellants or the Examiner, we
make reference to the Briefs and the Answer for the respective details
thereof.
OPINION
Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been
considered in this decision. It is our view, after consideration of the record
Appeal 2007-0834
Application 09/757,913

4
before us, that the evidence relied upon does not support the Examiner’s
rejection of the claims on appeal. Accordingly, we reverse.
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1 and 12
We consider first the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1
and 12 as being unpatentable over the teachings of Chen in view of
Maggenti.
Appellants argue that the Examiner does not make any argument, or
cite either reference [i.e., Chen or Maggenti] as disclosing taking a snapshot
of the old compressor and the decompressor context information and
delivering it to the new network entity after stopping the context information
[updating] (Reply Br. 3).
The Examiner disagrees. The Examiner notes that Chen teaches the
packet with its header (i.e., where context information is part of the header)
is sent from one base station to another. The Examiner argues it is inherent
that updating of any type within a packet must be stopped prior to sending
the packets. The Examiner reasons that if packets are not stopped, they
cannot have information changed within the packet (such as flags within the
headers). In addition, the Examiner asserts that Chen also teaches the use of
buffers to store packets if needed prior to sending out the packets. The
Examiner concludes that this further indicates that packets (i.e., including
header information, such as context information) are stopped prior to being
sent out (Answer 16-17).
In rejecting claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is incumbent upon the
Examiner to establish a factual basis to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1073, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
Appeal 2007-0834
Application 09/757,913

5
(Fed. Cir. 1988). In so doing, the Examiner must make the factual
determinations set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17, 148
USPQ 459, 467 (1966). “[T]he examiner bears the initial burden, on review
of the prior art or on any other ground, of presenting a prima facie case of
unpatentability.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443,
1444 (Fed. Cir. 1992). Furthermore, “‘there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness’ . . . [H]owever, 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 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. ___, 2007 WL 1237837, at *14 (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988,
78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
We begin our analysis by noting that in the rejection of claims 1 and
12, the Examiner asserts that Chen teaches the limitations argued by
Appellants (i.e., “stopping the context information updating …” and “taking
a snapshot of the compression and decompression context information …” )
(see Answer 4; see also claim 1). However, when we look to the Examiner’s
rejection for specific citations for these argued limitations, there are none
(Answer 4, ¶ 1). In responding to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner
asserts that Chen inherently teaches “stopping the context information
updating” as claimed (see Answer 16). Likewise, the Examiner asserts that
Chen inherently teaches “taking a snapshot of the compression and
decompression context information,” as claimed. (See Answer 18, ¶ 2: 8-10,
Appeal 2007-0834
Application 09/757,913

6
i.e., “It is inherent that a snapshot can only be taken when all the data has
been received as claimed. Otherwise, the snapshot would be useless”).
After carefully considering both the Chen and Maggenti references,
we find no specific teaching or suggestion within either reference that fairly
meets the language of the claim that requires “stopping the context
information updating…,” and “taking a snapshot of the compression and
decompression context information …” (claim 1). We find that to affirm the
Examiner on this record would require speculation on our part.
Furthermore, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has determined
that inherency may not be established by probabilities or possibilities. “The
mere fact that a certain thing may result from a given set of circumstances is
not sufficient.” In re Robertson, 169 F.3d 743, 745, 49 USPQ2d 1949, 1950-
51 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (internal citations omitted). Because we find the
combination of Chen and Maggenti fails to teach or suggest all the
limitations recited in the claim, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner
has failed to meet the burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. Accordingly, we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Maggenti.
Because independent claim 12 recites equivalent limitations, we will
also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 as being unpatentable over
Chen in view of Maggenti for the same reasons discussed supra with respect
to claim 1. Because we have reversed the Examiner’s rejection of each
independent claim, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of any
dependent claims under appeal. Therefore, we also reverse the Examiner’s
Appeal 2007-0834
Application 09/757,913

7
rejection of dependent claims 2-11 and 13-21 as being unpatentable over
Chen in view of Maggenti.
DECISION
In summary, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of any
claims under appeal. Therefore, the decision of the Examiner rejecting
claims 1-21 is reversed.
Appeal 2007-0834
Application 09/757,913

8

REVERSED

eld

PERMAN & GREEN
425 POST ROAD
FAIRFIELD CT 06824