Ex Parte Faccin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 25, 2018

14214115 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/214,115 03/14/2014
15142 7590 09/27/2018
Arent Fox, LLP and Qualcomm, Incorporated
1717 K Street, NW
Washington, DC 20006-5344
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Stefano Faccin
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
030284.12110/132249 8990
EXAMINER
ZEWDU, MELESS NMN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/27/2018 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
patentdocket@arentfox.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEP ANO F ACCIN and GERARDO GIARETT A
Appeal 2017-009501 1
Application 14/214, 115
Technology Center 2600
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-30. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 The real party in interest is Qualcomm, Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-009501
Application 14/214, 115
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present invention relates to "wireless communication systems,
and more particularly, to selection of mobile networks by access terminals or
other devices." Spec. ,r 2. The independent claims on appeal are claims 1,
16, 24, and 30. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below (with
emphasis added to a disputed limitation).
1. A method for network node selection of a user equipment
(UE), the method comprising:
receiving, from a home network, a message comprising a home
network policy associated with network node selection;
determining, by the UE, whether the home network policy has
precedence over a visited network policy of a visited network
based on an indication of precedence between the home
network policy and the visited network policy in the message;
and
selecting a network node based on the home network policy
in response to the determining that the home network policy has
precedence over the visited network policy.
REJECTION
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Mustajarvi (US 2012/0309447 Al; Dec. 6, 2012) and Song
(US 2007/0183410 Al; Aug. 9, 2007). Final Act. 2-8 (Sept. 21, 2016).
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 16, 24, and 30 and
Dependent Claims 2, 8-15, 17, 21-23, 25, and 29
Appellants argue Mustajarvi and Song do not teach or suggest
"determining, by a UE, whether the home network policy has precedence
2
Appeal2017-009501
Application 14/214, 115
over a visited network policy of a visited network based on an indication of
precedence between the home network policy and the visited network policy
in a message," as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 5. Specifically,
Appellants contend that, although Song is cited as teaching the claimed
message, Song "does not disclose or suggest an indication of precedence
between a home network policy and a visited network policy in a message."
Id. at 5---6 ( emphasis added).
Appellants' argument is not responsive to the Examiner's specific
findings. The Examiner finds Mustajarvi discloses a determination of
"whether the home network policy has precedence over a visited network
policy of a visited network." Final Act. 3 ( citing Mustajarvi ,r,r 6, 10, 11, 26,
29, 51 ). The Examiner further finds
[I]n the same field of endeavor, [S]ong teaches --- precedence
information, which indicates which domain selection
information should be used among the domain selection
information in the operator policy and the domain selection
information in the user preferences, can be provided to the
network entity or the UE (see par. 0056, 0062, 0085-0086). Note
that receiving the precedence information requires signaling or
some sort of message since the claimed message is generic (not[]
a particular type message). Therefore, it would have been
obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
application was filed to modify the teaching of Mastajarvi [sic]
with that of Song so that ---- precedence information, which
indicates which domain selection information should be used
among the domain selection information in the operator policy
and the domain selection information in the user preferences, can
be provided to the network entity or the UE (see par. 0056).
Id. at 3. We have reviewed Mustajarvi and Song, and concur in the
Examiner's findings. Appellants' argument that Song is silent as to
precedence between home and visited network policies amounts to an
3
Appeal2017-009501
Application 14/214, 115
individual attack on the references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981) ("[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of
references.").
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us
that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Mustajarvi and Song
teaches or suggests the limitations of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the
rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 16, 24, and 30,
which recite commensurate limitations. As claim 1 is representative of
dependent claims 2, 8-17, 21-25, 29, and 30 (see App. Br. 6), we also
sustain the rejections of these claims.
Dependent Claims 4, 18, and 26
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites "determining the visited
network policy has precedence based on receiving no indication of
precedence in the message, and selecting the network node based on the
visited network policy in response to determining the visited network policy
has precedence over the home network policy." Each of claims 18 and 26
recites limitations commensurate in scope with claim 4, and each is "rejected
on the same ground and motivation as claim 4." Final Act. 7 (claim 18), 8
( claim 26). The Examiner finds Mustajarvi teaches the limitations recited in
dependent claims 4, 18, and 26, and that "[ w ]hen the references are
combined as shown above, the modified system will indicate that the home
network policy has a precedence over that of the visited." Id. at 4 (citing
Mustajarvi ,r,r 11, 29, 35-37, 76).
Appellants contend "the Office Action acknowledges 'Mustajarvi
does not explicitly teach about --- receiving a message, from a home
4
Appeal2017-009501
Application 14/214, 115
network' ... [and] [i]f Mustajarvi does not disclose receiving a message,
Mustajarvi cannot possibly disclose receiving no indication of precedence in
the message." App. Br. 6 (emphasis omitted); see Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellants' argument is persuasive. The cited portions ofMustajarvi
do not teach or suggest "receiving no indication of precedence in the
message." See Mustajarvi ,r,r 11, 29, 35-37, 76; see Ans. 2-8. The
Examiner's finding that "the modified system will indicate that the home
network policy has a precedence over that of the visited" (see Final Act. 4)
does not explain how the person of ordinary skill in the art would have
understood the combined teachings of Mustajarvi and Song to teach or
suggest no indication of precedence in the message.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 4. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 4. As
claim 4 is representative of claims 18 and 26, we also do not sustain the
rejections of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37( c )(1 )(iv); App. Br. 6
(grouping these claims).
Dependent Claims 6, 19, and 2 7
Claim 6 depends from claim 1, and recites "wherein the indication of
precedence comprises an access node list, wherein the determining further
comprises: comparing the visited network to entries in the access node list,
determining the home network policy has precedence if the visited network
does not match any of the entries in the access node list, and determining the
visited network policy has precedence if the visited network matches any of
the entries in the access node list." Each of claims 19 and 27 recites
limitations commensurate in scope with claim 6 and each is "rejected on the
same ground and motivation as claim 6." Final Act. 6 ( claim 19), 8 ( claim
5
Appeal2017-009501
Application 14/214, 115
27). The Examiner cites paragraphs 6, 11, 15, 29, 33, and 37 of Mustajarvi
as teaching the limitations recited in dependent claims 6, 19, and 27.
Appellants contend that the combination of Mustajarvi and Song fails
to teach or suggest "determining the home network policy has precedence if
the visited network does not match any of the entries in the access node list,
and determining the visited network policy has precedence if the visited
network matches any of the entries in the access node list." App. Br. 7; see
Reply Br. 4. Specifically, Appellants argue that "the cited portions of
Mustajarvi disclose determining whether the highest priority access network
option of the selected policy has resulted in a successful connection, and if
not, trying a next lower priority access network option of the selected
policy." Id. Appellants further argue that the "cited portions also disclose
selecting the highest priority valid policy for the visited network (Paragraph
[0033]) and considering network selection policies provided by the home
network before and after the first selection policy provided by the visited
network (Paragraph [0037])." Id.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive. Mustajarvi discloses that
mobile communication device 2 receives information regarding the priority
for accessing available access networks and selects a network according to
existing network selection information or "by any other means available to
the mobile device." Mustajarvi ,r 6. Mustajarvi further discloses that mobile
communications device 2 applies the highest priority policy that satisfies
validity conditions such as, for example, location. Id. ,r 9. Mustajarvi also
discloses "global" policies valid only when the mobile communication
device is roaming in a visited network and "local" policies valid only when
the mobile communication device is located within the home network. Id. ,r
6
Appeal2017-009501
Application 14/214, 115
35. It is unclear, on this record, how the cited teachings of Mustajarvi would
have suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan that the precedence of the
network is based on a comparison and matching or lack of matching.
For the foregoing reasons, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 6. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 6. As
claim 6 is representative of claims 19 and 27, we also do not sustain the
rejections of these claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); App. Br. 7-8
(grouping these claims).
Dependent Claims 7, 20, and 28
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites "attempting to retrieve the
visited network policy in response to determining the visited network policy
has precedence; and selecting a network node based on the home network
policy in response to failing to retrieve the visited network policy or
retrieving no applicable visited network policy." Each of claims 20 and 28
recites limitations commensurate in scope with claim 7 and each is "rejected
on the same ground and motivation as claim 7." Final Act. 6 (claim 20), 8
( claim 28). The Examiner finds Mustajarvi's mobile communication device
does not retrieve a visited network policy when it is within the home
network. See Ans. 8.
Appellants contend Mustajarvi does not teach or suggest "failing to
retrieve the visited network policy or retrieving no applicable visited
network policy" and selecting a network node in response thereto. App. Br.
8; Reply Br. 5-7. Specifically, Appellants argue Mustajarvi teaches a
roaming mobile communication device that initiates a connection and
successfully retrieves a policy from the visited operator Access Network
Discovery and Selection Function (V-ANDSF). App. Br. 5---6. Appellants
7
Appeal2017-009501
Application 14/214, 115
further argue that the mobile communication device does not attempt to
retrieve a visited network policy when not roaming, i.e., when within the
home network. Id. at 7-8.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' contention, because claim 7
recites "selecting a network node" responsive to alternative conditions,
"failing to retrieve the visited network policy or retrieving no applicable
visited network policy." Appellants' argument does not address the
Examiner's finding that Mustajarvi's mobile communication device does not
retrieve a visited network policy when it is within the home network. See
Ans. 8. The Examiner need not also make specific findings that the
combination of Mustajarvi and Song teaches "selecting a network node"
responsive to the alternative condition of "failing to retrieve the visited
network policy." We have reviewed Appellants' remaining arguments, all
of which rely on issues we have addressed above. We are not persuaded for
the reasons already discussed.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
addressing claim 7. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 7. As
claim 7 is representative of claims 20 and 28, we also sustain their
rejections. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv); App. Br. 8 (grouping these
claims).
8
Appeal2017-009501
Application 14/214, 115
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 2, 7-17, 20-25,
and 28-30.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 4, 6, 18, 19, 26,
and 27.
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
9