Ex Parte Raghuram et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 11, 2009

10975583 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 11, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHARADA RAGHURAM,
RICHARD C. BURBIDGE, and ROHINI POLISETTY
_____________

Appeal 2009-0903
Application 10/975,583
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided:1 February 11, 2009
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN A. JEFFERY,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this
page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper
delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2009-0903
Application 10/975,583

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a wireless communication
device 200 that sends an initial direct transfer (IDT) message with an emergency
cause to a wideband multiple access (WCDMA) network 102 (Fig. 5 and Spec.
8:15-18). The WCDMA network in turn sends a cell change order including a call
redirection cause to the wireless communication device 200 (Fig. 5 and Spec. 8:18-
20). The wireless communication device 200 synchronizes to a GSM cell on the
GSM network 104 and sends a channel request with an emergency cause to the
GSM network 104 (Fig. 5 and Spec. 8:22-29).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A method in a wireless communication device comprising:
sending an initial direct transfer message with an emergency cause on an
existing radio resource control connection;

receiving a connection release message with a call redirection cause in
response to sending the initial direct transfer message with an emergency cause on
the existing radio resource control connection;

synchronizing to a designated global system for mobile communications
cell;

2
Appeal 2009-0903
Application 10/975,583

and
establishing an emergency call on the global system for mobile
communications cell.

THE REJECTION
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Müller US 6,845,238 B1 Jan. 18, 2005
(filed Apr. 06, 2000)

Jacobson US 2006/0209675 A1 Sep. 21, 2006
(filed Jun. 30, 2004)

The following rejection is before us for review:
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jacobson in view of Müller.
Appellants argue the prior art rejection of claims 1-20 as a group with
independent claims 1, 9, and 17 as representative (Br. 10-12).2 Accordingly,
claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20, stand or fall with claims 1, 9, and 17. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2004). Furthermore, we note that Appellants’ arguments are
directed to Jacobson, and apart from merely asserting that Müller fails to disclose
the first two elements of claim 1, Appellants have presented no arguments which

3
2 Only arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this decision.
Arguments which Appellants could have made but did not make in the Brief have
not been considered and are deemed waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(2004).
Appeal 2009-0903
Application 10/975,583

specifically address the teachings of Müller (Br. 12).

ISSUE
Appellants contend that Jacobson’s Radio Resource Control (RRC)
connection release message “is sent in response to the Iu-link break, and not in
response to an initial direct transfer message” with an emergency cause (Br. 11)
(emphasis in original).
The Examiner responds that a connection release message is received only
when a RRC connection (emergency message) is made, and thus, the connection
release message is in response to the RRC connection (Ans. 13).
The issue before us, then, is as follows:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred by determining that
Jacobson teaches “receiving a connection release message with a call redirection
cause in response to sending the initial direct transfer message with an emergency
cause” as claimed?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following:
1. Jacobson teaches that a caller placing an emergency call can be re-directed
to a backup network (i.e., GSM network) when the circuit-switched services
are not available (¶[0019] and [¶0024]).
2. Jacobson explains that there could be several reasons that services are not
available and these include: link interruption (i.e., Iu-link break), various
4
Appeal 2009-0903
Application 10/975,583

congestion situations in the communication system, or resource shortages
(¶[0020]).
3. Jacobson further teaches that user equipment 14 receives an RRC connection
release message with a re-direct indication to the GSM network when an Iu-
link break occurs during the placement of an emergency call (¶[0024]).
4. Jacobson discloses that the invention applies in situations related to
emergency calls where a service is not available in the existing network (i.e.,
UTRAN) and the user equipment performs this service over a backup
network (i.e., GSM-network) (¶[0001]).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is
met, then the burden shifts to Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with
argument and/or evidence. Id.

ANALYSIS
Jacobson teaches that a caller placing an emergency call can be re-directed
to a backup network (i.e., GSM network) when the circuit-switched services are
not available (Finding of Fact 1). Jacobson explains that that there could be
several reasons that services are not available and these include: link interruption
(i.e., Iu-link break), various congestion situations in the communication system, or
resource shortages (Finding of Fact 2). Jacobson further teaches that user
5
Appeal 2009-0903
Application 10/975,583

equipment 14 receives an RRC connection release message with a re-direct
indication to the GSM network when an Iu-link break occurs during the placement
of an emergency call (Finding of Fact 3). Thus, Appellants are correct that the
direct transfer request occurs due to the Iu-Link break. However, nothing in the
claim language precludes the interpretation of the direct transfer request occurring
during an Iu-Link break as being construed as the “initial direct transfer message,”
because this is the first time (i.e., “initial”) that a direct transfer message is
requested, and in response thereto an RRC connection release message with a re-
direct indication to the GSM network is received by the user equipment 14.
Furthermore, Jacobson discloses that the invention applies in situations
related to emergency calls where a service is not available in the existing network
(i.e., UTRAN) and the user equipment performs this service over a backup network
(i.e., GSM-network) (¶[0001]). Thus, it is because of the urgent nature of the call
(i.e., “emergency cause”) that the re-direction to a different network is being
sought.
Accordingly, Jacobson teaches receiving a connection release message with
a call redirection cause in response to sending the initial direct transfer message
(i.e., first direct transfer request due to Iu-link break) with an emergency cause
(i.e., the urgent nature of the call is the reason of the direct transfer request)
(Findings of Fact 1-4).
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 9, and 17, or claims 2-8, 10-16, and 18-20

6
Appeal 2009-0903
Application 10/975,583

which fall with claims 1, 9, and 17. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of those claims.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred by determining that
Jacobson teaches “receiving a connection release message with a call redirection
cause in response to sending the initial direct transfer message with an emergency
cause” as claimed.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) 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).

AFFIRMED

rwk

MOTOROLA INC
600 NORTH US HIGHWAY 45
W4-39Q
LIBERTYVILLE, IL 60048-5343
7