Ex Parte Chen et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 28, 2010

11121877 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 28, 2010)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte PI-CHUN CHEN and ZHANG QINQING
____________

Appeal 2009-001412
Application 11/121,877
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: April 29, 2010
____________

Before KENNETH W. HAIRSTON, MARC S. HOFF
and KARL D. EASTHOM, Administrative Patent Judges.
HAIRSTON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6(b) and 134 from the final
rejection of claims 1 to 20.
The disclosed invention relates to a method of determining whether to
admit a new call to a communication system based on a flow of the new call
(Fig. 1; Spec. ¶¶ 00013 and 00014; Abstract). A flow can be a particular call
Appeal 2009-001412
Application 11/121,877

2
application (Spec. ¶¶ 0007 and 00047) or a call priority (Spec. ¶¶ 00016,
00017, 00023, 00027, 00031, and 00032).
Claim 1 is the only independent claim on appeal, and it reads as
follows:
1. A method of communicating, comprising:
determining whether to admit a new call based on a flow of the new
call.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Scholefield US 6,216,006 B1 Apr. 10, 2001
Chen US 2003/0064730 A1 Apr. 3, 2003
The Examiner rejected claims 1 to 4, 9 to 11, and 17 to 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) based upon the teachings of Scholefield.
The Examiner rejected claims 5 to 8 and 12 to 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based upon the teachings of Scholefield and Chen.
The Examiner contends (Final Rej. 2) that “Scholefield et al. teaches a
wireless data network with admission control function which decides
whether service requests, which includes new calls, can be admitted in order
to maintain the quality of service levels, interpreted as flows, present within
the network.” In response, Appellants argue (App. Br. 6, 7 and 11) that the
determination by Scholefield of available bandwidth on the network for the
new call is not the same as a determination of the flow of the new call as set
forth in the claims on appeal.
In Scholefield, a new call “admission decision is determined by
testing whether there is enough surplus capacity on the wireless data
Appeal 2009-001412
Application 11/121,877

3
network to accommodate the effective bandwidth of the service request”
(col. 3, ll. 54-57). In other words, a new call is admitted “if the bandwidth
requirement of the new call is less than the estimated unused bandwidth”
(col. 4, ll. 18, 19).
Inasmuch as a new call admission determination made by Scholefield
on the basis of available bandwidth in the network to handle the call is not
the same as a new call admission determination made on the basis of the
flow (i.e., the application or priority) of the new call, we agree with
Appellants’ argument that Scholefield does not admit a new call based on a
flow of the new call.
In summary, the anticipation rejection of claims 1 to 4, 9 to 11, and 17
to 20 is reversed because each and every limitation in the claims is not found
either expressly or inherently in the cited reference to Scholefield. In re
Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
The obviousness rejection of claims 5 to 8 and 12 to 16 is reversed
because the mobile communication teachings of Chen do not overcome the
noted shortcomings in the teachings of Scholefield.
The decision of the Examiner is reversed.

REVERSED
KIS

CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C./Alcatel-Lucent
400 W MAPLE RD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009