Ex Parte Ahamed et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 27, 2012

10425384 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/425,384 04/29/2003 Syed V. Ahamed Ahamed 19-33
(LCNT/124560
3138
46363 7590 03/28/2012
WALL & TONG, LLP/
ALCATEL-LUCENT USA INC.
25 James Way
Eatontown, NJ 07724
EXAMINER
PATEL, ASHOKKUMAR B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte SYED V. AHAMED and VICTOR B. LAWRENCE
________________

Appeal 2009-014381
Application 10/425,384
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JASON V. MORGAN, and
BRUCE R. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-014381
Application 10/425,384

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 – 8, 11 – 15, and 17 – 21. Claims 3, 9, 10, and 16
are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to localized knowledge-based intelligent
networks for providing subscriber-specific services via any generic network
(Spec. ¶ [0001]). Claims 1, 7, 14, 20, and 21 are the only independent
claims.
Exemplary Claim
1. A method for providing access to localized knowledge-based
services provided via a plurality of corresponding local
knowledge processing systems, the method comprising the
steps of:
receiving a signal via a network indicative of a request for a
subscriber-specific service;
processing the signal using a local knowledge processing
system comprising information pertaining to the subscriber-
specific service and configured to process requests pertaining to
the subscriber[-]specific service, wherein each local knowledge
processing system performs the functions of a local internet
service provider and includes a local subscriber portion;
updating the local knowledge processing system in accordance
with results of the processing of the request; and
providing access to the subscriber-specific service, wherein the
plurality of local knowledge processing systems are
Appeal 2009-014381
Application 10/425,384

3
communicatively coupled to each other and at least one local
service provider.
(Emphases added).
Evidence and Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 2, 4 – 8, 11 – 15, and 17 – 21 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by March (US
6,459,783 B1) (Ans. 3 – 13).
ISSUE
The Examiner finds that March, which is directed to internet service
provider call redirection, discloses all of the recitations of claim 1, including,
for example: (1) a signal indicative of a request for a subscriber-specific
service (Ans. 3 – 4, citing March, col. 5, ll. 48 – 54); (2) processing the
system using a local knowledge processing systems that includes a local
subscriber portion (Ans. 4, citing March, col. 6, l. 36 – col. 7, l. 15); and (3)
providing access to the subscriber-specific service (Ans. 6, citing March,
Fig. 1 and col. 4 ll. 47 – 51).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that “services
provided by the gateways of March are non-subscriber-specific” (App. Br.
15) (emphasis in the original) and that “a typical gateway does not have a
local subscriber portion” (App. Br. 16). Appellants further contend that the
arrangement in March Figure 1 “clearly fails to show a plurality of local
knowledge based systems” (Reply Br. 4).
Thus, we are presented with the following issue:
Did the Examiner err in finding that March discloses all the recitations
of claim 1?
Appeal 2009-014381
Application 10/425,384

4
ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner and adopt as our own (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the arguments set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 13 – 26).
For emphasis, we note that the Specification discloses that the
“localized knowledge-based intelligent network . . . provides tailored,
personalized, services to any generic service subscribers” (Spec. ¶ [0012]).
Examples of such services include “locating organ donors, medical services,
insurance services, sales services, financial services, and educational
services” (id.). Based on this disclosure and broad set of exemplary services,
a “subscriber-specific service” includes any service tailored to a subscriber
(e.g., by forming a connection with the subscriber’s system).
The Examiner correctly finds that March discloses a subscriber using
a computer to interact with a web server to download web pages and other
content using an Internet Telephone call routed through both a traffic
network and the Internet (Ans. 19 – 20, citing March, col. 5, ll. 1 – 17 and 48
– 54). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that this call—which forms a
connection with the subscriber’s system to provide web server interactions
and thus is tailored to the subscriber making the call—provides a subscriber-
specific service (Ans. 20).
The Examiner also correctly finds that March discloses dynamic call
redirection where calls are redirected to a new IP (internet protocol) gateway
depending upon operating criteria such as proximity of the subscriber to
each of a plurality of IP gateways (Ans. 22 – 23, citing, e.g., March, col. 5,
ll. 31 – 42). The IP gateway selection depends on the subscriber’s location
Appeal 2009-014381
Application 10/425,384

5
(i.e., the subscriber’s proximity to each of a plurality of IP gateways), thus
the access service is tailored to the subscriber making the call (see March,
col. 5, ll. 34 – 38). Therefore, March’s dynamic call redirection further
discloses a subscriber-specific service.
For further emphasis, we note that the Examiner correctly concludes
that a “local knowledge processing system” is not actually local, but can
comprise a network of components residing anywhere in the network (Ans.
18; see also Spec. Figs. 1 and 2). Appellants explicitly do not dispute the
Examiner’s interpretation of this limitation (Reply Br. 3). The Examiner
further finds that March discloses the claimed local knowledge processing
systems, where the local subscriber portion in each local knowledge
processing system is disclosed by March’s call redirection unit implemented
in a service control point (Ans. 23, citing March, col. 5, ll. 31 – 42; see also
Ans. 4 – 5). Appellants argue that March does not “expressly describe that
the gateways 118 – 120 comprise information regarding subscriber-specific
services. In contrast, services provided by the gateways of March are non-
subscriber-specific” (App. Br. 15). Because the Examiner relies on a call
redirection unit implemented in a service control point as disclosing the local
subscriber portion, not on information in the gateways, Appellants’
arguments are not responsive to the Examiner’s articulated findings and thus
not persuasive of error.
The Examiner also correctly notes that March discloses that there are
often many service control points, not just the one depicted in Figure 1 (Ans.
21, citing March, col. 4, ll. 37 – 47). Therefore, March discloses a plurality
of knowledge processing systems, each having one of many service control
points.
Appeal 2009-014381
Application 10/425,384

6
Appellants further contend that March teaches away from the claimed
invention (App. Br. 15). However, teaching away “is inapplicable to an
anticipation analysis.” Celeritas Techs, Ltd. v. Rockwell Int’l Corp., 150
F.3d 1354, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
For the reasons given above, we find that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Appellants provide no additional arguments with respect to
independent claims 7, 14, 20, and 21, or with respect to dependent claims 2,
4 – 6, 8, 11 – 13, 15, and 17 – 19, other than to point out that these claims
incorporate the disputed recitations, or recitations similar to the disputed
recitations (App. Br. 16). Accordingly, for the same reasons as given above,
we find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting these claims under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4 – 8, 11 –
15, and 17 – 21.
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

msc