Ex Parte Rimhagen et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

14623182 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/623,182 02/16/2015 Anna Pucar Rimhagen
24112 7590 03/27/2019
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
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.
4015-8958 / P23528-US2 4313
EXAMINER
NGO, NGUYEN HOANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2019 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 ANNA PUCAR RIMHAGEN, ROBERT PETERSEN,
PER-DANIEL STALNACKE, and EDWIN TSE
Appeal2018-000046
Application 14/623, 182 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-000046
Application 14/ 623, 182
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
Appellants describes the invention as follows:
The present invention relates to the field of tracing the activities
of wireless terminals in wireless networks. The invention more
particularly relates to a method and a core network management
device for ordering a tracing of the activities of a wireless
terminal in a wireless network as well as to a method and an
access network management device for initiating a tracing of
the activities of a wireless terminal in a wireless network.
Spec ,r 2.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. Method for tracing activities of a wireless terminal in a
wireless network, comprising:
receiving, in a core network management device, a first
request for tracing activities of a first wireless terminal;
ordering, based on said request, wireless access point
handling devices to perform tracing of activities of said first
wireless terminal; and
ensuring that trace log data associated with said first
request is sent to a destination trace log data handling device.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 9-12, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § I03(a) over Walter et al. (US 2004/0125781, Al; pub. July 1, 2004,
hereinafter "Walter"). Final Act. 4--7.
2. Claims 2, 3, 6, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a)
over Walter and Jha et a. (US 2006/0293029, Al; pub. Dec. 28, 2006,
hereinafter "Jha"). Final Act. 7-8.
2
Appeal2018-000046
Application 14/ 623, 182
3. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Walter
and Ware et al. (US 2007/0133454, Al; pub. June 14, 2007, hereinafter
"Ware"). Final Act. 8-9.
4. Claims 14 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over
Walter and Thomas (US 2009/0117906; pub. May 7, 2009). Final Act. 9-
10.
5. Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Walter
and Monte et al. (US 5,664,006; iss. Sept. 2, 1997, hereinafter "Monte").
Final Act. 10-11.
6. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over Walter
and Bennett (US 2007/0109990, Al; pub. May 17, 2007). Final Act. 11-12.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
The Examiner finds Walter's control server teaches a "core network
management device." Final Act. 5 ( citing Walter ,r,r 28, 40). Specifically,
the Examiner finds that the computer network 16 depicted in Figure 2 of
Walter is a core network and that Walter's control server, which is
connected to the computer network, is therefore a core network management
device. Ans. 12 (citing Walter ,r,r 16, 37; Fig. 2). The Examiner also finds
the control server manages is a core network management device because it
monitors access points and is a "'core' and essential part in the monitoring."'
Ans. 12.
Appellants argue "Walter's control server is not itself disclosed as
within the computer network 16" of Walter's Figure 2, and is instead shown
as "outside the computer network 16." App. Br. 10. Appellants also argue
"Walter fails to even teach a core network." App. Br. 11.
3
Appeal2018-000046
Application 14/ 623, 182
We are persuaded of Examiner error. We agree with Appellants that
Walter does not disclose that its control server is a core network
management device. Although Walter discloses that the control server
connects to the access points through the Internet or through a computer
network (see Walter ,r 16) the Examiner does not present sufficient evidence
the control server is part of the "core" of the Internet or computer network,
as one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that term, as opposed to
other parts of the network. Moreover, we disagree with the Examiner that
that the term "core," as it is used in the claims, is synonymous with the term
"essential" and that Walter's control server is a core management device
because it performs an "essential" function.
Accordingly, constrained by the record before us, we do not sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 and of independent claims
7, 9, and 12, which were also rejected on the aforementioned basis. See
Final Act. 5. We also do not sustain the rejection of the pending dependent
claims for the same reason.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-19 is reversed.
REVERSED
4