11318168 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

Ex Parte Benveniste

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2013

11318168 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte MATHILDE BENVENISTE _____________ Appeal 2010-010279 Application 11/318,168 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before DAVID M. KOHUT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, BRYAN F. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-010279 Application 11/318,168 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-20 which represent all the pending claims. Br. 6. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention is directed to telecommunications in general, and more particularly, to admitting a call in a shared-access system. See Spec. ¶ [0001]. Claim 1 is exemplary of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: receiving a first message from a server, wherein the first message specifies a data-transmission requirement for a call that involves a first telecommunications terminal, wherein the first message is based on a second message that is transmitted from the first telecommunications terminal while associated with a first shared-communications channel, and wherein the second message specifies information on which the data- transmission requirement is based; and receiving a third message that indicates that the first telecommunications terminal has associated with a second shared-communications channel, wherein the third message bypasses the server; and transmitting a fourth message, based on the contents of the first message and the third message. REFERENCES O’Neill US 2005/0063324 A1 Mar. 24, 2005 O’Neill US 7,366,152 B2 Apr. 29, 2008 Appeal 2010-010279 Application 11/318,168 3 REJECTION AT ISSUE Claims 1, 5, and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by O’Neill `324. Ans. 3-5. Claims 2-4, 7-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of O’Neill `324 and O’Neill `152. Ans. 5- 12. ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding that O’Neill `324 discloses the following limitations recited in claim 1: a. “wherein the first message is based on a second message that is transmitted from the first telecommunications terminal while associated with a first shared- communications channel . . . ,” and b. “receiving a third message that indicates that the first telecommunications terminal has associated with a second shared-communications channel . . . ,” and c. “transmitting a fourth message, based on the contents of the first message and the third message;” and 2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of O’Neill `324 and O’Neill `152 collectively teach the following limitations recited in claim 7:“changing the value of a first flag when the call is accepted on the second shared-communications channel, wherein the changing of the first flag's value is based on (i) the data-transmission requirement for the call, (ii) the physical layer data rate of the second shared-communications channel, and (iii) Appeal 2010-010279 Application 11/318,168 4 whether the first shared-communications channel and the second shared-communications channel are the same [?]” ANALYSIS 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) - O’Neill `324 Claims 1, 5, and 6 Appellant argues that O’Neil `324’s Core Service Response signal 1005 does not read on claim 1’s limitation of a “second message” (limitation 1.a above) because the signal 1005 is not based on Service Request signal 1020 (the claimed first message), but rather is based on server 1000 (the claimed server), receiving and processing Core Service Request signal 1010 and responding with Core Service Response signal 1020. Br. 20. The argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that signal 1020 is based at least in part on signal 1005 (the claimed first message), which initiated the sequence that led to sending signal 1010, which then leads to the sending of signal 1020. Ans. 14-15. Thus, signal 1020 is indirectly based on signal 1005. Appellant does not identify any description in the original disclosure that limits the term “based on” to mean “based solely on,” or the like, nor does Appellant identify any description in the original disclosure that precludes the Examiner’s application of the prior art to this term. Accordingly, and in view of the record presented, Appellant has not persuasively argued that the Examiner’s application of the prior art is unreasonable in view of, or inconsistent with, Appellant’s Specification. Therefore, we agree that O’Neil `324 discloses “wherein the first message is based on a second message that is transmitted from the first Appeal 2010-010279 Application 11/318,168 5 telecommunications terminal while associated with a first shared- communications channel.” Regarding issue 1.b. above, Appellant argues that “O’Neill `324 fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation because the reference does not indicate that the identifier is associated with a second shared- communications channel. Br. 21. The argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner finds that “O'Neill et al. (US20050063324A1) discloses call originating and handoff operations involving End Node (i.e., claimed first communications terminal), Server 1000 (claimed server), originating Access Node 140, Target Access Node 140' comprising message sequences as disclosed Figure 11 and paragraph 0108-0130.” Ans. 14. In other words, End Node X is handing off from Access Node 140 to 140'. The Examiner then finds that “O'Neill . . . discloses receiving message 560 (claimed third message) that indicates that the End Node X (claimed first telecommunications terminal) has associated with a second shared- communications channel according to wireless communications protocol . . . because message 560 indicates that End Node X is in communications with Target Access Node 140'.” Ans. 15 (citing to O’Neill `324, Fig. 11 and ¶¶ [108] – [130]). This can be seen in the following messaging sequence from O’Neill: End Node X 146 may send a signal 550 to the Access node 140' indicating its arrival in cell corresponding to the access node and a desire to connect to and/or handoff to the access node 140'. . . . Appeal 2010-010279 Application 11/318,168 6 The Access Node 140' which is the destination Access Node in the case of an exemplary handoff, requests state from CSMN 104, e.g., in response to message 550, by sending a STRQ message 560 to said CSMN 104. The STRQ message 560 will normally include the End Node X 146 identifier, and the Access Node 140 and 140' identifiers . . . The CSMN node 104 then compares the current Access Node identified in the stored state with the Access Node 140 included in the STRQ message 560. If these do not match the CSMN 104 sends a rejection in message 570 indicating that state is not being supplied in response to message 560. However, if they match, the CSMN 104 provides stored state corresponding to the End Node 146 to Access Node 140' in message 570. O’Neill `324, ¶¶ [0126], [0127], [0129]. Thus, the cited portions above confirm the Examiner’s finding that message 560 is sent in reaction to (i.e. indicates) that End Node X attempting to connect with Access Node 140'. As stated in the block quotation above, when message 560 is received, it includes a stored state that may match with the state of Access Node 140. O’Neill, ¶ [0129]. The comparison of states to facilitate a handoff is an indication that End Node X is connecting (i.e., associated) with Access Node 140'. Id. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 15) that message 560 (the claimed third message) indicates that End Node X (the claimed first telecommunications terminal) is in communications with Target Access Node 140' (the claimed second telecommunications terminal). We also agree that O’Neil `324 discloses “receiving a third message that indicates that the first telecommunications terminal has associated with a second shared- communications channel.” Appeal 2010-010279 Application 11/318,168 7 Appellant argues that O’Neil `324’s “Core Service Response signal does not read on claim 1’s limitation of a “fourth message” (limitation 1.c above) because the “CSMN-STU message 570” of O'Neill `324 is not based on “Core Service Response signal 1020,” but rather is based on “STRO message 560.” Br. 22. The argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. The Examiner finds that: O'Neill et al. (US20050063324A1) message sequences discloses that based on the contents of the message 1020 (claimed first message) i.e., state information including SOP description of the call, resources required for the call, call identifiers relating to call corresponding to End Node X, Core state management node CSMN stores and/or updates such state information [Figure 11 and paragraph 0108-0130]. O'Neill et al. (US20050063324A1) further discloses that Core state management node transmit message 570 (claimed fourth message) based on contents of message 560 (claimed third message) and stored state information [Figure 11 and paragraph 0108-0130]. Therefore, O'Neill et al. (US20050063324A1) message sequences as stated above discloses transmitting message 570 (claimed fourth message) based on the contents of the message 1020 (claimed first message) and the message 560 (claimed third message) [Figure 11 and paragraph 0108-0130]. Ans. 16. Thus, although the “CSMN-STU message 570” of O'Neill `324 is based on “STRO message 560,” as Appellant argues, the “CSMN-STU message 570” is also based on the contents of the message 1020 because message 1020 is the stored state information used to transmit message 570. Therefore, we agree that O’Neil `324 discloses “transmitting a fourth message, based on the contents of the first message and the third message.” Appeal 2010-010279 Application 11/318,168 8 Appellant does not substantively argue the rejection of claims 5 and 6. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 5 and 6. 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) - O’Neill `324 and O’Neill `152 Claims 2-4, and 7-20 As to issue 2 above, Appellant argues that: O'Neill `152 fails to teach or suggest, alone or in combination with O’Neill `324, that the ‘resource information 206’ is: i. a data-transmission requirement for a call, and ii. a physical layer data rate of a second shared- communications channel. Additionally, the Office's interpretation is not acceptable because O'Neill `152 fails to teach or suggest, alone or in combination with O'Neill '324, that the "counter" can be changed based on: i. the ‘resource information 206,’ and ii. whether a first shared-communications channel and a second shared-communications channel are the same. Br. 25. Appellant merely recites the claim limitations and asserts that it is not found in O’Neil `324 and O’Neil `152. Id. The Board’s rule, 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii), requires more substantive argument in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 7. Appeal 2010-010279 Application 11/318,168 9 Appellant does not substantively argue the rejection of claims 2-4, 8- 20. Thus, for the reasons stated above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-4, 7-20. DECISION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ke