Ex Parte Kandregula et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 26, 201310889908 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANIL K. KANDREGULA and MICHAEL D. HALL ____________ Appeal 2010-007996 Application 10/889,908 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. Appeal 2010-007996 Application 10/889,908 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to Appellants, their invention relates to a collaborative state machine framework for use in a communication network. Spec. ¶ 001. Claims 1, 11, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention (disputed limitation italicized): 1. For use in a communication network, an apparatus comprising: a processor comprising a state machine capable of transitioning between a plurality of states, wherein the plurality of states comprises at least two concurrent states; and wherein the state machine is further capable of operating in the at least two concurrent states concurrently. Rejection on Appeal The Examiner has rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Salkini (US 6,912,230 B1; June 28, 2005) and Chapuran (US 6,967,933 B2; Nov. 22, 2005). Ans. 4-15. Issues on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal are: 1. Does the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teach or suggest a state machine capable of operating in at least two states concurrently, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 14-17)? 2. Did the Examiner improperly combine Salkini and Chapuran in rejecting claim 1 (App. Br. 17-19)? 3. Does the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teach or suggest “a correlation state capable of initiating transitions to the concurrent states Appeal 2010-007996 Application 10/889,908 3 and receiving results from execution of tasks associated with the concurrent states,” as recited in claims 3 and 16 (App. Br. 19-21)? 4. Does the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teach or suggest “wherein at least one of the states is associated with a task comprising a plurality of sub-tasks and the at least one state comprises: a plurality of normal sub-states associated with the sub-tasks; and a plurality of exception sub-states associated with exception handling,” as recited in claim 5 and commensurately recited in claim 18 (App. Br. 22-24)? 5. Does the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teach or suggest a “correlation state capable of facilitating communication between tasks associated with at least two other states,” as recited in claim 7 (App. Br. 24- 25)? 6. Does the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teach or suggest “wherein at least one of a semaphore, a shared memory, global data, and an interrupt is used to facilitate communication between the tasks associated with the at least two other states,” as recited in claim 8 (App. Br. 25)? ANALYSIS Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Salkini discloses a processor comprising a state machine for call processing in a communication network. Ans. 4; Salkini, col. 11, ll. 33-46; col. 18, l. 37 – col. 21, l. 19; Fig. 23 (state machine for mobile originated call processing); see also Salkini, col. 21, l. 20 – col. 26, l. 28; Figs. 24-27 (additional call processing state machines). Because the Examiner finds that Salkini does not disclose a state machine that operates in at least two states concurrently, as recited in claim 1, the Appeal 2010-007996 Application 10/889,908 4 Examiner turns to Chapuran for that teaching. Ans. 5-6, 15-17. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Chapuran discloses a single basic call state model (BCSM) processor (common call processor 524) that performs the functions of both an originating BCSM processor and a terminating BCSM processor. Ans. 6, 16; Chapuran, col. 6, l. 64 – col. 7, l. 3; Figs. 7 & 8. Further, the Examiner finds that the single BCSM processor is equivalent to a single state machine that operates in two states concurrently, e.g., O_Active and T_Active event states, as shown in Figures 7 and 8 of Chapuran. Ans. 16-17. Appellants contend that the single BCSM processor in Chapuran is not a state machine capable of operating in two states concurrently. App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 3-5. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding that O_Active and T_Active are concurrent states, but instead allege they are not concurrent states within a single state machine. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants argue that Chapuran teaches two separate BCSM stacks, an originating BCSM stack and a terminating BCSM stack, from which they conclude that the single BCSM processor in Chapuran may run multiple state machines. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4-5; see Chapuran, Figs. 7 & 8. Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner has erred in finding that Chapuran teaches a single state machine capable of operating in two states concurrently. Appellants’ Specification broadly describes a state machine consistent with their invention as “any hardware, software, firmware, or combination thereof supporting the execution of multiple tasks in two or more concurrent states.” Spec. ¶ 030. The single BCSM processor in Chapuran does exactly this—it supports the execution of call processing Appeal 2010-007996 Application 10/889,908 5 tasks associated with two concurrent states, e.g., O_Active and T_Active. Chapuran, Figs. 7 & 8. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language consistent with Appellants’ Specification, we agree with the Examiner that Chapuran discloses a state machine capable of operating in at least two states concurrently, as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 16-17. Appellants also argue that the Examiner has not provided a sufficient rationale for combining Salkini and Chapuran in rejecting claim 1. App. Br. 17-19; Reply Br. 5. The Examiner has identified a reason, based on language in Chapuran, which is supported by the evidence. Ans. 6, 17-18. In addition, as the Examiner properly finds, both Salkini and Chapuran present concepts and practices regarding call processing in communication networks based on a similar state machine model. Ans. 6, 17. We further note that the portion of Chapuran relied on by the Examiner in the rejection suggests that the functions of state machines for originating and terminating call processing, both taught in Salkini, can be combined into a single processor comprising a single state machine when the calling party and called party are served by the same service manager. Ans. 6, 16; Salkini, col.6, l. 66 – col. 7, l. 3. Thus, the single BCSM processor comprising a state machine capable of operating in concurrent states as taught by Chapuran, which also appears to teach the other limitations of claim 1, is merely a predictable variation of known elements disclosed in Salkini. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“If a person of ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its patentability.”). It follows that we are also not persuaded the Examiner used impermissible hindsight in formulating the rejection. Appeal 2010-007996 Application 10/889,908 6 For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Salkini and Chapuran. We also sustain the § 103(a) rejection of independent claims 11 and 19, which contain limitations similar to those in claim 1 and for which Appellants have not presented separate arguments. See App. Br. 19. Similarly, Appellants have not presented any substantive arguments with respect to dependent claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 12-15 and 20-22 (App. Br. 19), and we therefore sustain the rejection of those claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 3 and 16 Appellants contend that the combination of Salkini and Chapuran fails to teach or suggest a “correlation state capable of initiating transitions to the concurrent states,” as recited in dependent claims 3 and 16. App. Br. 21; Reply Br. 8. The Examiner relies on Salkini for this teaching, explaining that the call processing module (CPM) in Salkini creates for each call a session object that uses a common reference scheme to track all events associated with a call. Ans. 8, 18-19. The Examiner interprets the session object as representing the correlation state recited in claims 3 and 16 because the session object is associated with state events on both the origination side and termination side of the call, which are progressing concurrently. Ans. 8, 19. However, even if the session object in Salkini can be interpreted as a correlation state that tracks events and states as a call progresses, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not pointed to anything in Salkini suggesting the session object is capable of initiating state transitions, as recited in the claims. See App. Br. 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Appeal 2010-007996 Application 10/889,908 7 Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 16, nor do we sustain the rejection of claims 4 and 17, dependent thereon, respectively.1 Claims 5 and 18 With respect to claims 5 and 18, the Examiner finds that Salkini discloses a number of states associated with the normal call setup process. Ans. 9-10, 21; Salkini, col. 18, ll. 37-60. The “wait for alert” state (S4) is an example of a normal state and is further associated with a plurality of sub- tasks relating to call setup, including sending and receiving messages to required system components. Ans. 10, 21; Salkini, col. 18, l. 61 – col. 19, l. 17. The Examiner also finds that Salkini discloses an exception handling process that is followed when a channel assignment fails. Ans. 10-11; Salkini, col. 41, ll. 28-54. Specifically, Salkini discloses a plurality of sub- tasks relating to channel teardown, including message sequences to release the channel and report that the call is cleared. Ans. 11, 21-22; Salkini, col. 41, ll. 28-54. The Examiner interprets these sub-tasks as being associated with sub-states, as recited in the claims. Ans. 11, 22. Appellants’ statements in their briefs merely allege that the Examiner’s findings and reasoning are unsupported, but do not provide a convincing explanation as to why the Examiner erred. App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 10. Thus, Appellants have not presented sufficient arguments to persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teaches or suggests the recited limitations relating to sub-tasks and sub-states. App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 10. Accordingly, we 1 Because this issue is dispositive, we do not reach Appellants’ other contentions regarding these claims. See App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 6-9. Appeal 2010-007996 Application 10/889,908 8 sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Salkini and Chapuran. Claims 7 and 8 The Examiner relies on Salkini for teaching the disputed limitations in claims 7 and 8. First, the Examiner finds that an A-interface message handler (AMH) provides message processing between base station controller and mobile switching center state machines, thus facilitating “communication between tasks associated with at least two other states,” as recited in claim 7. Ans. 22-23; Salkini, col. 13, ll. 62-65. The Examiner also finds that the area in common memory allocated by the AMH to be used for transaction processing for the duration of a call is a shared memory used to facilitate communication between tasks, as recited in claim 8. Ans. 12, 23; Salkini, col. 31, ll. 20-31. Appellants do not sufficiently address these findings by the Examiner and therefore have failed to persuade us that the Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Salkini and Chapuran. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Salkini and Chapuran. We conclude, however, that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Salkini and Chapuran. Appeal 2010-007996 Application 10/889,908 9 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 18-22 is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 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 babc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation