Ex Parte Anulf et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2018

13982330 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2018)

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.
13/982,330 07/29/2013 Andreas Anulf 1009-0603 / P36269 US1 3695
7590
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
BHATTI, HASHIM S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2472
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/21/2018 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANDREAS ANULF and OVE KARLSSON
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF, and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 25—53.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party in
interest. Supp. App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 1—24 have been previously canceled.
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to a system for online charging within an
IP Multimedia Subsystem that provides an announcement to a mobile user
including information related to their account. Spec. 1:11—20, 2:1—3.
Exemplary claim 25 under appeal reads as follows:
25. A method relating to online charging within an IP
Multimedia Subsystem (IMS), the method comprising, at an
IMS charging node:
receiving a credit control request message from an IMS
service network node over a service charging interface provided
between the IMS service node and the IMS charging node;
determining with reference to one or more triggering
conditions that an announcement is to be provided to a user
associated with the credit control request message or another
user, or both; and,
following such a determination, initiating an
announcement service in the IMS service node by sending an
announcement request in a credit control answer message over
the service charging interface to the IMS service node, the
credit control answer message being in response to the credit
control request message, and the announcement request
comprising announcement information relating to the
announcement to be provided, wherein the announcement
information comprises information concerning a content of the
announcement to be provided.
The Examiner’s Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 25—53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cai (US 2008/123603 Al; May 29, 2008) and Hakala
(IETF, RFC 4006, Diameter Credit-Control Application, Aug. 2005). Final
Act. 2-10.
2
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
The Examiner rejected claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite. Final Act. 2.3
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 25, 29, 46, and 47
In rejecting claims 25 and 46, the Examiner finds Cai discloses the
recited element of “receiving a credit control request message from an IMS
service network node over a service charging interface provided between the
IMS service node and the IMS charging node.” Final Act. 3. The Examiner
further finds that Cai does not disclose, but Hakala discloses the steps of:
determining with reference to one or more triggering conditions
that an announcement is to be provided to a user associated
with the credit control request message or another user, or both;
and,
following such a determination, initiating an announcement
service in the IMS service node by sending an announcement
request in a credit control answer message over the service
charging interface to the IMS service node, the credit control
answer message being in response to the credit control request
message, and the announcement request comprising
announcement information relating to the announcement to be
provided, wherein the announcement information comprises
information concerning a content of the announcement to be
provided.
Supp. App. Br. 15 Specifically, the Examiner finds that Hakala teaches
“announcement information comprises information concerning a content of
3 The Appeal Brief filed 5/3/2016 and Supplemental Appeal Brief filed
8/26/2016 do not address the 112, second paragraph rejection set forth in the
Final Office Action. See Final Act. 2; Ans. 2. Since Appellants present no
arguments pertaining to the Examiner’s 112, second paragraph rejection, we
summarily sustain the rejection. See MPEP § 1205.02, 9th ed., Rev.
07.2015, Nov. 2015.
3
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
the announcement to be provided” by disclosing a Credit-Control-Answer
message including an address in the form of a SIP Uniform Resource
Identifier. Final Act. 4 (citing Hakala 102, 103). The Examiner directs us to
Hakala disclosing that “the Credit Control-Server responds with a Credit-
Control-Answer, which includes Final-Unit-Redirect-Indication-AVP,
Redirect-Address-Type set to SIP URI and Redirect-Server-Address set
to Top-up server.” Ans. 10 (citing Hakala 102, 103). The Examiner further
rejects independent claims 29 and 47 using a similar rationale. See Final
Act. 5, 6. The Examiner further asserts that Hakala’s URI address can
correspond to the claimed “announcement information” because the
specification defines “announcement information” as an address of the
server. Ans. 9, 10 (citing Spec. 19:11—15).
Appellants argue that the combination of Cai and Hakala does not
disclose “the announcement information comprises information concerning a
content of the announcement to be provided,” as recited in independent
claim 25 and similarly recited in independent claims 29, 46, and 47. Supp.
App. Br. 8—10. Specifically, Appellants argue that Hakala’s SIP URI is not
“information concerning a content of the announcement to be provided,”
because it is an address set to the Top-up server name and “is clearly not a
reference to a particular item of content.” Id. at 10. In other words,
Appellants argue that Hakala’s SIP URI address merely points to a server
and not to any specific resource or announcement stored on that server.
Further, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s assertion that the
specification defines “announcement information” as an address of the
server. Reply Br. 3—6. Appellants assert the specification states that
“announcement information,” may be comprised of three categories of
4
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
information: “information concerning when the announcement is to be
provided,” “information concerning who the announcement is to be provided
to,” and “information concerning a content of the announcement to be
provided.” Id. at 4. Appellants argue that although the specification states
that “announcement information” may comprise an address, the claimed
category of “information concerning a content of the announcement to be
provided,” as recited in claim 25, is described as “an announcement
identifier or reference which can be used to look up predetermined content
which is to make up at least part of the announcement to be provided. Id. at
3, 4 (citing Spec. 3:18—20).
The Examiner responds that, similar to the description of the
announcement information as the address of an announcement server in
Appellants’ Specification, Hakala discloses announcement information in
the form of a SIP URI set as the address of the Top-up server. Ans. 9, 10
(citing Spec. 19:11—15). Once Hakala’s SIP URI is received, the SIP
controller establishes a connection to the Top-up server using the SIP URI,
and the Top-up server plays an announcement. Id. (citing Hakala 102, 103).
Moreover, the Examiner explains that “[i]t is well known in the art that a
URL or a URI can point out to a specific resource (announcement) on a
server.” Ans. 9, 10.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. Although Appellants
are correct in pointing out that their specification does not define
announcement information as an address of a server (Reply Br. 4—7) and “it
is the language of the claims that is relevant here, not the detailed examples
provided in the Applicant's specification” {id. at 7), the language set forth in
independent claim 25 and similarly recited in independent claims 29, 46, and
5
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
47 is not commensurate in scope with Appellants’ argument. Claim 25
recites only that “the announcement information comprises information
concerning a content of the announcement to be provided.” Claims 25, 29,
46, and 47 do not, as Appellants suggest, require that announcement
information refer to a specific item of content. Id. at 3. Hakala’s SIP URI
address concerns the content of the announcement to be provided because it
identifies the Top-up server that plays an announcement to the user. Hakala
103. Hence, we agree with the Examiner that Hakala teaches information
concerning a content of the announcement to be provided by disclosing a
SIP URI pointing to the address of the Top-up server.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 25, 29, 46 and 47 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We also sustain the rejection of claims 26, 30, 35—38,
41—45, and 48—53, which depend from claims 25, 29, 46 and 47 and are not
separately argued.
Dependent Claims 27 and 28
Claim 27 depends from independent claim 25 and recites “in response
to such a determination in the determining step, requesting the IMS service
node to send the credit control request message, such that said receiving is
performed following said determining.” The determination step of claim 25
requires “determining with reference to one or more triggering conditions
that an announcement is to be provided to a user associated with the credit
control request message.”
The Examiner finds that Hakala discloses the limitation of claim 27 as
step 3 credit control (Final Act. 4 (citing Hakala 102, 103)) and further
asserts “Hakala on page 102 discloses ‘At the expiry of the allocated quota,
the SIP controller sends a Diameter Credit-Control-Request. ..’, in other
6
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
words, when the charging node determines that the allocated quota has been
expired, it sends a Diameter Credit-Control-Request.” Id. At 10. The
Examiner explains that Hakala’s step of determining the allocated quota is
expiring and would be a triggering condition for sending a credit control
request message that is received by the credit control server. Ans. 10, 11.
Appellants argue that “nothing in Hakala's Flow VII or the
accompanying description suggests that an IMS charging node determines
that an announcement is to be provided and then requests, in response to this
determination, a credit control request.” Supp. App. Br. 12. Specifically,
Appellants argue that “Hakala does not discuss determining that an
announcement is to be provided to a user before a credit control request
message is sent," and that “Hakala does not discuss any determination
regarding an announcement before the credit control request message is
sent.” Reply Br. 9.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As found by the
Examiner, Hakala discloses a determination that the allocated quota has
expired. Ans. 10 (citing Hakala 102). Following the determination, a
Diameter Credit-Control-Request is sent and a Diameter Credit-Control-
Answer is provided that redirects the user to a Top-up server that plays an
announce requesting replenishment of the user’s account. Id. at 11. Hence,
the determination that the allocated quota has expired triggers the credit
control request message to be sent such that the receiving of the credit
control request message follows the determining that the quota expired. Id.
In light of Hakala’s disclosure, we agree with the Examiner that determining
the allocated quota has expired amounts to a triggering condition that an
7
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
announcement is to be provided and for requesting a credit control request
message to be sent.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 27 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 28 depends from claim 27 and is not separately
argued. Therefore, we similarly sustain the rejection of claim 28.
Dependent Claims 31—34
Claim 31 recites “the information concerning the content of the
announcement comprises an announcement identifier or reference which can
be used to look up predetermined content which is to make up at least part of
the announcement to be provided.” The Examiner finds Hakala teaches this
limitation by disclosing a Redirect-Server-Address pointing to the Top-up
server name. Similar to the discussion above with respect to independent
claim 25, the Examiner explains that the Redirect-Server-Address “refers to
an address which comprises an announcement. The announcement is stored
on a server called Top-up server.” Ans. 11.
Appellants contend Hakala’s Redirect-Server-Address “is clearly a
reference to a server, but not a reference to an announcement” and “[ujnder
no reasonable interpretation can an ‘announcement identifier or reference’
be understood as a reference to an entire server.” Supp. App. Br. 12, 13.
Moreover, Appellants argue that the Top-up server name cannot be used to
look up predetermined content of an announcement to be provided to the
user. Reply Br. 10.
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument because the Examiner has
not sufficiently explained how Hakala’s Redirect-Server-Address can be
used to look up predetermined content. The Examiner asserts that the
Redirect-Server-Address refers to an address which comprises an
8
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
announcement. Ans. 11. However, the Examiner does not adequately
explain how Hakala teaches using the address of the Top-up server as an
announcement identifier or reference which can be used to look up
predetermined content.
Therefore, Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner’s position with respect to the rejection of claim 31. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 31, claim 34,
which recites similar limitations, and claims 32 and 33 dependent therefrom.
Dependent Claims 39 and 40
Claim 39 recites “a plurality of announcement requests is included in
the credit control answer message, wherein a first announcement request of
the plurality relates to a call setup announcement and a second
announcement request of the plurality relates to an announcement at the end
of the call.” Claim 40 is broader than claim 39 and recites only that “a
plurality of announcement requests is included in the credit control answer
message.”
The Examiner finds that Cai teaches a plurality of announcements
including a pre-call and post-call notification. Final Act. 8, 9 (citing Cai
| 6). The Examiner further finds that although Cai does not explicitly
disclose a plurality of announcement requests in a credit control answer
message, Hakala discloses that an announcement request is included in a
credit control answer message. Id. (citing Hakala 102, 103). The Examiner
explains that Cai’s pre-call, mid-call, and post-call announcements can
include “one or more notification definitions,” (announcements) and can be
combined with Hakala’s Credit-Control-Answer message to “include more
than one announcement at different points in [a] session (pre-call and post-
9
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
call) and transmit it on a single CCA message disclosed in Hakala.” Ans.
12.
Appellants contend Cai and Hakala do not teach “a plurality of
announcement requests is included in the credit control answer message,” as
recited in claim 39 and similarly recited in claim 40. Specifically,
Appellants assert that Cai discloses “announcements that are provided at
completely different points in a session (e.g., pre-call and post-call), and
does not suggest that requests for these announcements could or should be
provided in a single message.” Supp. App. Br. 13. In other words,
Appellants argue that Cai does not disclose a pre-call and post-call
announcement being sent in the same message as recited in claim 39. Reply
Br. 11. Appellants further contend Hakala discloses sending “messages
relating to a top-up - i.e., a replenishment of funds during or after a session,”
and there is no apparent reason why the person of ordinary skill in the art
would seek to modify Hakala to include a plurality of announcement
requests, such as a request for a pre-call announcement, in a credit control
answer message.” Id. More specifically, Appellants argue there is no
apparent reason to include Cai’s pre-call message in Hakala’s Credit-
Control-Answer message because Hakala’s Credit-Control-Answer message
is unrelated to Cai’s pre-call messages as it deals only with replenishing
funds during or after a call. Id. Finally, Appellants assert that Cai only
discloses Credit-Control-Answer messages carrying information pertaining
to granted quotas and “does not suggest that multiple announcement requests
should be included in the CCA message.” Reply Br. 11, 12.
With respect to claim 40, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
argument. The Examiner finds that Cai discloses sending a plurality of
10
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
announcement requests and that each of Cai’s announcements may carry a
plurality of announcements, described as notifications by Cai. Final Act. 8,
9 (citing Cai 1 6); Ans. 12 (citing Cai, Fig. 4). In explaining Figure 4, Cai
states:
In step 404, session manager 304 identifies at least one
notification definition for the triggering event from notification
database ... In step 406, session manager 304 then provides
notification to UE 314 of IMS subscriber 318 based on the one
or more notification definitions identified for the triggering
event. The notification may be a pre-session notification, a
mid-session notification, or a post-session notification
depending on the triggering event.
Cai 135,36. Hence, Cai discloses that each pre-session, mid-session, and
post-session notifications may be comprised of “one or more notification
definitions.” Id. In light of Cai’s disclosure of multiple announcements and
Hakala’s disclosure of sending an announcement in a credit control answer
message, we find that the combined teachings of Cai and Hakala teach “a
plurality of announcement requests is included in the credit control answer
message,” as recited in claim 40. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of
claim 40.
Claim 39 additionally recites “wherein a first announcement request
of the plurality relates to a call setup announcement and a second
announcement request of the plurality relates to an announcement at the end
of the call.” Here, we are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. As argued by
Appellants, “Cai describes announcements that are provided at completely
different points in a session (e.g., pre-call and post-call), but Cai does not
suggest that requests for these announcements could or should be provided
in a single message.” Reply Br. 11. In other words, although Cai discloses
11
Appeal 2017-005567
Application 13/982,330
sending a plurality of announcements at one time, Cai does not disclose the
plurality of announcements including a call setup announcement and an end
of call announcement sent at one time as required by claim 39. Hakala
discloses sending a top-up announcement, but does not discloses ending a
pre-call and post-call notification in a single message. Id.
Therefore, because Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error
in the Examiner’s position with respect to the rejection of claim 39, we do
not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 39.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 31—34, 39.
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 25—30, 35—38, and
40-53.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
12