Ex Parte Cai

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 27, 2014

11618004 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
11/618,004 12/29/2006 Yigang Cai CAI 100 5151
50525 7590 03/28/2014
DUFT BORNSEN & FETTIG, LLP
1526 SPRUCE STREET
SUITE 302
BOULDER, CO 80302
EXAMINER
SIVJI, NIZAR N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2014 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 YIGANG CAI
____________

Appeal 2012-000019
Application 11/618,004
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-000019
Application 11/618,004

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Illustrative Claim
1. A communication network, comprising:
an IMS node for an IMS network that is adapted to:
receive a call-related message for a call from an access
network that is serving user equipment, wherein the call-related
message includes an access network identifier for the access
network;
identify location information related to the access network
identifier;
determine a local time for the user equipment based on the
location information;
generate a charging message for the call; and
insert a timestamp in the charging message based on the
local time for the user equipment to provide a billing system
with the local time for the user equipment.

Prior Art
Hakala US 2005/0213721 A1 Sep. 29, 2005
Noldus US 2006/0229084 A1 Oct. 12, 2006
Ejzak US 2007/0213031 A1 Sep. 13, 2007

Appeal 2012-000019
Application 11/618,004

3
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noldus and Hakala.
Claims 3-5, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Noldus, Hakala, and Ejzak.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and
20
Appellant contends Hakala does not teach an IMS node that receives a
call-related message including an access network identifier for the access
network. App. Br. 9. However, the Examiner relies on Hakala to teach an
IMS node that receives a message from an access network, and Noldus to
teach the message includes an access network identifier for the access
network. Ans. 5-6, 9-10.
Appellant contends Noldus does not teach an IMS node adapted to
receive a call-related message that includes an access network identifier for
the access network as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10. In particular,
Appellant contends the USSD messaging protocol used by Noldus is not
usable in an IMS network. Id. However, attorney argument is not evidence.
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974). Nor can it take the place
of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782
(CCPA 1977). On this record, Appellant provides no evidence to show the
USSD protocol is not usable in an IMS network. In addition, the Examiner
finds the GSM network of Noldus is compatible with the IMS network of
Hakala. Ans. 10. The Examiner’s finding is supported by Appellant’s
Appeal 2012-000019
Application 11/618,004

4
Specification, which states the access network can be a GSM network that
does not use the same protocols as the IMS network. Spec. 1:28.
Appellant contends Noldus does not teach a data request including an
access network identifier. App. Br. 10. According to Appellant, the “Board
could read the entirety of Noldus, and they would not find any discussion of
a message . . . that includes an access network ID.” Id. The scope of
“access network identifier,” when read in light of Appellant’s Specification,
encompasses any identifier for an access network or a node in an access
network. Spec. 4:20-26. Noldus teaches a method for including location
information in a message by a network node. Title. The location
information of the message may include information about the access node,
such as the service area ID for a 3G access node. ¶ 51. Therefore, Noldus
teaches a message that includes an “access network identifier” within the
meaning of claim 1.
Appellant contends Noldus does not teach an access network. App.
Br. 10-12. In particular, Appellant contends the mobile switching center
(MSC) of Noldus is not part of an access network, but is part of a core
network. Reply Br. 2-4. However, paragraph 32 of Noldus teaches that
location information reflects the type of access network, and paragraphs 50
and 51 teach that location information may include an identifier for the
access network. Appellant does not provide persuasive evidence or
argument to distinguish the access network taught by paragraphs 32, 50, and
51 of Noldus from the “access network” recited in claim 1. We find Noldus
teaches an “access network” within the meaning of claim 1. The access
network of Noldus, when serving as access network 2 shown in Figure 1 of
Appeal 2012-000019
Application 11/618,004

5
Hakala, teaches sending a call-related message including an access network
identifier for the access network to an IMS node in network 3.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellant
does not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 6, 8, 9, 11,
12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 20, which fall with claim 1.

Section 103 rejection of claims 3-5, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19
Appellant does not present arguments for separate patentability of
claims 3-5, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19, which fall with claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 18, and
20under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Noldus and Hakala is
affirmed.
The rejection of claims 3-5, 7, 10, 13, 16, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Noldus, Hakala, and Ejzak 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). See 37 C.F.R. §
41.50(f).

AFFIRMED

tj