Ex Parte Bajko

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 21, 2018

11970350 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 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.
11/970,350 01/07/2008 Gabor Bajko 042933/338302 2842
10949 7590
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
OBAYANJU, OMONIYI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/23/2018 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GABOR BAJKO1
Appeal 2016-008131
Application 11/970,350
Technology Center 2600
Before JASON V. MORGAN, DAVID J. CUTITTAII, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1—28. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to the Appeal Brief, Nokia Technologies Oy is the real party in
interest. See Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-008131
Application 11/970,350
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to a mobile
apparatus that ensures emergency calls are not dropped as a result of
movement of the mobile apparatus. See Spec. 1 6.2 The mobile apparatus
updates its network location, as well as its network address, each time a
handover is performed so that the call center can re-establish the connection
with the emergency caller in the event that the connection is lost. Id. In
another aspect, the apparatus may transmit a location update request to an
address included with the request, regardless of whether the server receiving
the request resides outside of a boundary associated with the emergency call
center corresponding to that address. See Spec. 128.
Exemplary Claims
Claims 1, 14, 21, 27, and 28 are independent. Claims 1 and 28 are
exemplary of the claimed subject matter and are reproduced with disputed
limitations emphasized below:
1. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, the
at least one memory and the computer program code configured
to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform
at least the following:
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the following: (1) Appellant’s
Specification, filed January 7, 2008 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office Action
(“Final Act.”), mailed March 5, 2015; (3) the Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”),
filed March 2, 2016; (4) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”), mailed June 28,
2016; and (5) the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”), filed August 25, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-008131
Application 11/970,350
cause initiation of an emergency call via a computing
device;
cause a handover to be performed; and
provide for transmission of a Session Initiation Protocol
update request from the apparatus comprising a different
location of the apparatus and a network address of the apparatus
in response to performing the handover.
28. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code, the
at least one memory and the computer program code configured
to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform
at least the following:
receive a request to update a location associated with a
mobile device, said request including an address associated with
an emergency call center; and
provide for transmission of the request to the address,
wherein the apparatus is outside of a boundary associated with
the emergency call center.
Appeal Br. 14, 19—20.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Bugnon et al. (“Bugnon”)
Zhuetal. (“Zhu’716”)
Fuller, JR. et al. (“Fuller”)
Rudolf et al. (“Rudolf’)
Lamb et al. (“Lamb”)
Zhu et al. (“Zhu ’999”)
US 6,240,284 B1
US 2005/0213716 Al
US 2006/0276168 Al
US 2007/0032219 Al
US 7,245,900 B1
US 2009/0004999 Al
May 29, 2001
Sept. 29, 2005
Dec. 7, 2006
Feb. 8, 2007
July 17, 2007
Jan. 1,2009
3
Appeal 2016-008131
Application 11/970,350
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—10, 14—19, 21—25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Fuller, Lamb, and
Zhu ’999. Final Act. 8—16.
Claims 11—13, 20, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Fuller, Lamb, Zhu ’999, and Rudolph.
Final Act. 16—20.
Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Zhu ’716 and Bugnon. Final Act. 20—21.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
issues raised by Appellant. We have not considered other possible issues
that have not been raised by Appellant and which are, therefore, not before
us. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2015).
ISSUES
1. Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Fuller,
Lamb, and Zhu ’999 teaches or suggests “transmission of a Session
Initiation Protocol update request from the apparatus comprising a different
location of the apparatus and a network address of the apparatus in response
to performing the handover,” as recited in claim 1.
2. Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Zhu ’716
and Bugnon teaches or suggests “receive a request to update a location
associated with a mobile device, said request including an address
associated with an emergency call center” and “provide for transmission of
the request to the address, wherein the apparatus is outside of a boundary
associated with the emergency call center,” as recited in claim 28.
4
Appeal 2016-008131
Application 11/970,350
ANALYSIS
Issue 1 — Claims 1—10, 14—19, 21—25, and 27
The Examiner finds claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Fuller,
Lamb, and Zhu ’999. Final Act. 8—10.
Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings. Appellant argues
“Lamb fails to disclose, teach, or suggest transmission of a Session Initiation
Protocol update request from the apparatus comprising a different location
of the apparatus and a network address of the apparatus.” Appeal Br. 8.
We find Appellant’s argument unpersuasive because we agree with
the Examiner’s finding that Lamb discloses “the mobile node moves from
one location to another and communicate[s] with different network[s], and
that the mobile node transmits its’ BSSID [Basic Service Sets Identifier] and
its’ position” in a SIP request. Ans. 5 (citing Lamb abstract, col. 2,11. 7—8,
col. 6,11. 40-48, Fig. 1). Appellant notes Lamb “transmits a SIP INVITE
message to the wireless access point including the BSSID of the wireless
access point (previously stored in the node) and the determined position” but
Appellant does not explain why Lamb’s location information and BSSID fail
to suggest the claimed SIP request comprising a “different location of the
apparatus and a network address of the apparatus.” Appeal Br. 8. Instead,
Appellant argues:
The cited portion of Lamb at column 4 does not pertain to the
originating of a [emergency services] call by the wireless node,
as disclosed in column 2. Instead, at column 4 Lamb discloses
that an access point database stored the locations of wireless
access points such that the locations are keyed to the BSSID of
the wireless access points.
Appeal Br. 8. We are unpersuaded. This argument is not responsive to the
Examiner’s findings because the Examiner relies on Fuller rather than Lamb
5
Appeal 2016-008131
Application 11/970,350
to teach “initiation of an emergency call via a computing device,” as
required by claim 1. Appellant’s argument, thus, fail to take into account
what the collective teachings of the prior art would have suggested to one of
ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Appellant further argues Lamb does not teach “providing for
transmission of a Session Initiation Protocol update request from the
apparatus ... in response to performing the handover.'1'’ Appeal Br. 8
(emphasis added). “Instead, Lamb merely discloses a wireless node
transmitting a SIP INVITE message to the wireless access point in response
to a user request to originate an emergency services call.” Appeal Br. 8.
We are unpersuaded because this argument is not responsive to the
Examiner’s findings. Appellant’s argument only disputes the Examiner’s
findings from Lamb but the rejection relies on the teachings of Lamb and
Fuller in combination. That is, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Fuller
teaches providing an update request in response to a handover (Final Act. 9
(citing Fuller 110)) and Lamb teaches the update request is a SIP request
including a location and network address (Final Act. 10 (citing Lamb
Abstract and col. 4,11. 16—32)).
Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings or
conclusion of obviousness from the proffered combination. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1
as well as the rejection of independent claims 14, 21, and 27, which are
argued for similar reasons as independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 7.
Dependent claims 2—10, 15—19, and 22—25, are not argued separately and so
the rejection of these claims are sustained for the reasons given for their
respective independent claims. See Appeal Br. 13.
6
Appeal 2016-008131
Application 11/970,350
Claims 11—13, 20, and 26
Claims 11—13, 20, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fuller, Lamb, Zhu ’999, and Rudolph. Final
Act. 25—26. Appellant does not argue claims 11—13, 20, and 26 separately,
other than to contend that Rudolph “fails to remedy the discussed
deficiencies of Fuller, Jr., Lamb, and Zhu ‘999” in the rejection of claim 1.
Appeal Br. 13. Because we do not determine the rejection of claim 1 to be
deficient, we affirm the rejection of these claims.
Issue 2 — Claim 28
The Examiner relies on Zhu ’716 to teach “provide for transmission of
the [location update] request to the address [associated with an emergency
call center]” as claimed. Final Act. 21 (citing Zhu ’716 Fig. 9, #9). Figure
9 of Zhu ’716 is reproduced below.
A352 <-404 C402 '400
StP tP
Phone
Customer
SIP SW
5.iMFO(CBN,r«i.inSo)
6. £00 {OK, tocjnfc)
1 VoIP
Intermediate Location
StPS/W -Server
1. Emergency call
4. INFO (CBN.reqJnto)
3. INFO (CBRreq irffo)
7.200