Ex Parte Gallant et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 29, 2009

09766943 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 29, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JOHN K. GALLANT, THOMAS GLENN HALL, JR.,
and STEVEN R. DONOVAN
_____________

Appeal 2008-5119
Application 09/766,943
Technology Center 2400
____________

Decided:1 June 29, 2009
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date shown on this
page of the decision. The time period does not run from the Mail Date (paper
delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134 of the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-50 and 54-65. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a policy server system for
managing bandwidth usage in an Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM) network
(Spec. 7:11-14). The policy server determines whether a call connection can be
made or not depending on the triggers associated with a signaling message and
wherein a particular feature is invoked and executed by the policy server (Spec.
7:14-21). Examples of such features include burst-size limit, class-of-service
provisioning, maximum concurrent calls connections in progress, and bandwidth
control (Spec. 7:23-8:7).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An intelligent policy server method in an Asynchronous Transfer Mode
(ATM) network having an ingress switch and an egress switch, wherein said
ingress switch serves an ingress device operated by a calling party and said egress
switch serves an egress device operated by a called party, comprising the steps of:
receiving, in said ingress switch, a signaling message from said ingress
device;
providing said signaling message to a signaling intercept processor
associated with said ingress switch;
propagating said signaling message to a policy server, said policy server
including at least one policy profile associated with a plurality of policy features,
each policy profile of the at least one policy profile being associated with a
subscriber;
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

3
determining in said policy server, based at least in part on said signaling
message,
if a particular policy feature of the plurality of policy features is to be
invoked;
if so, determining whether a policy condition associated with said particular
policy feature is satisfied with respect to said signaling message; and
establishing a connection path between said ingress switch and said egress
switch based on said determination that said policy condition is satisfied by said
signaling message.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Horn US 5,276,676 Jan. 4, 1994

VanDervort US 5,761,191 Jun. 2, 1998

Kobayashi US 5,896,371

Apr. 13, 1999
Kilkki US 6,041,039 Mar. 21, 2000
(filed Mar. 20, 1997)
Farris

US 6,154,445 Nov. 28, 2000
(filed Sep. 17, 1997)
Gai US 6,167,445 Dec. 26, 2000
(filed Oct. 26, 1998)
Smith US 6,222,823 B1 Apr. 24, 2001
(filed Sep. 10, 1997)
Buyukkoc US 6,463,062 B1 Oct. 8, 2002
(filed Dec. 23, 1998)
Basso US 6,633,539 B1 Oct. 14, 2003
(filed Jul. 12, 1999)
Christie US 6,690,656 B1 Feb. 10, 2004
(filed Mar. 25, 1999)
Noake US 6,751,222 B1 Jun. 15, 2004
(filed Oct. 19, 1999)
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

4
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 31 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Buyukkoc.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Noake.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 6, 8, 9, 19-21, 23, and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Christie.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Farris.
5. The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Buyukkoc in view of VanDervort.
6. The Examiner rejected claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Buyukkoc in view of Horn.
7. The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Basso.
8. The Examiner rejected claims 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Christie and further in view of Gai.
9. The Examiner rejected claims 27-29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Kobayashi.
10. The Examiner rejected claim 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Smith.
11. The Examiner rejected claims 32-37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Kilkki.
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

5
12. The Examiner rejected claims 39-43, 45, 50, and 58 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Gai.
13. The Examiner rejected claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Gai and further in view of Noake.
14. The Examiner rejected claims 46-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Gai and further in view of Christie.
15. The Examiner rejected claim 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Gai and further in view
of Farris.
16. The Examiner rejected claims 54-56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Gai and further in view of Kobayashi.
17. The Examiner rejected claim 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Gai and further in view of Smith.
18. The Examiner rejected claims 59-64 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Gai and further in view of Kilkki.
19. The Examiner rejected claim 65 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Buyukkoc in view of Gai and further in view of Basso.

ANTICIPATION
ISSUE
1. Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 31
With respect to claims 1-3 and 5, Appellants contend that Buyukkoc does
not disclose that routing status database (RSD) server 730 includes at least one
policy profile associated with a plurality of policy features and where each policy
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

6
profile is associated with a subscriber (Br. 11). Appellants argue that Tables VII-
IX of the RSD server 730 store information regarding the status of links and routes
in asynchronous transfer mode (ATM) network 20, which is not associated with a
subscriber (Br. 11). Appellants further argue that Buyukkoc does not disclose or
suggest that the RSD is a service control point (SCP), much like Appellants’ Multi-
Service Control Point (MSCP), because in column 11, lines 13-15, Buyukkoc
discloses that the RSD is accessed after the SCP, and thus, the RSD and the SCP
are two separate devices (Br. 16-17). Appellants also argue that the colors
associated with congestion (i.e., green, yellow, and red) as disclosed in column 14,
lines 26-44, do not constitute a priority rule/policy or quality of service rule/policy
(Br. 19).
With respect to claim 11, Appellants particularly argue that even if
Buyukkoc’s routing status database could reasonably be construed as
corresponding to the recited policy server, which includes at least one policy
profile associated with a plurality of policy features, where the plurality of policy
features includes a particular policy feature comprising an aggregate bandwidth
limit feature, then there would be no need for the routing status database to receive
the bandwidth requirements since the routing status database would already
contain this information (Br. 21).
With respect to claim 12, Appellants argue that the section of column 10,
lines, 50-55 cited by the Examiner does not disclose the claimed feature of “a
service class selection,” but rather, discloses that the RSD performs out-of-network
routing, class-of-service, and capacity management in a packet transport network
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

7
(Br. 22). Appellants repeat the same argument with respect to claim 31 (Br. 32-
35).
With respect to claims 14-16 and 18, Appellants repeat the same arguments
as those presented with respect to claim 1 (Br. 23-32). Appellants further argue
that column 13, lines 29-67 of Buyukkoc does not disclose an RSD server 730
which is associated with a signaling intercept processor, but rather, regional
routing status database servers (Br. 27).
The Examiner finds that Buyukkoc discloses propagating a signaling
message (Fig. 8, Step 820; Fig. 10, step 1030; sends setup for a new call to RSD)
to a policy server (Fig. 7, a link 770 to central RDS server 730, i.e., Signaling
Control Point, SCP), including at least one policy profile having a plurality of
policy features (col. 14, l. 9-col. 15, l. 50; col. 10, ll. 10-20; col. 11, ll. 1-16; col.
13, ll. 1-6 and 29-67; wherein the RSD contents consists of connection rules/policy
such as connectively information, threshold, quality of service, capacity, and/or
status of loading/congestion), and where each policy profile of the at least one
policy profile being associated with a subscriber (col. 14, ll. 35-64; a quality of
service rule/policy is one of the rule/policy associated with a call, where a call is
associated with a user (Figs. 9 and 5; subscriber/customer)) (Ans. 29). The
Examiner emphasizes that if Buyukkoc’s request call is not associated with
user/customer/subscriber (shown in Figs. 5 and 9) as argued by Appellants, then
the Examiner is not sure with whom that call would be associated with (Ans. 30).
The Examiner further finds that Buyukkoc teaches that the policy server
determines, based at least in part on the signaling message, if a particular policy
feature of the plurality of policy features is to be invoked (Fig. 8, step 840; Fig. 10,
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

8
steps 1035 and 1040; col. 13, ll. 1-7; col.13, l. 64-col. 14, l. 67; Tables VII-IX;
decide how to route the call in accordance with RSD contents by determining and
triggering/invoking a particular/specific quality-of-service rule/policy of
connection rules/policies for received call’s priority of traffic) (Ans. 29).
The Examiner asserts that Appellants’ policy server manages bandwidth by
determining whether a call connection can be made through the network based on
whether particular features are invoked (Ans. 31). The Examiner states that
according to Appellants’ examples, such features include burst-size limit, class-of-
service provisioning, maximum concurrent call connections in progress, and
bandwidth control (Ans. 31). The Examiner asserts that Buyukkoc similarly
teaches managing the network based on routing features responsible for
distributing load based on some rule or logic (Ans. 31). The Examiner refers to
Buyukkoc’s features of load balancing, overload control, and priorities for
different quality-of-service traffic in order to manage the total bandwidth usage
(Ans. 32-34). The Examiner cited Buyukkoc’s column 11, lines 14-15, for the
proposition that while the routing status database content is stored at the RSD,
nonetheless Buyukkoc discloses that the same server can provide RSD and SCP
functionality (Ans. 29).
The Examiner further finds that Buyukkoc’s three congestion status ranges
which are “green,” “yellow,” and “red” delineate an increasing order of congestion
(Ans. 31). The Examiner asserts that Appellants’ “at least one policy profile” is
tantamount to Buyukkoc’s “quality of service priority of a request call” (Ans. 33).
Furthermore, the Examiner provides an example of a policy profile wherein if a
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

9
call arrives and all its possible paths are “red,” the call may be blocked, depending
upon its priority (Ans. 33).
The issue before us, then, is as follows:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred by finding that Buyukkoc
teaches the limitation of a “policy server including at least one policy profile
associated with a plurality of policy features, each policy profile of the at least one
policy profile being associated with a subscriber” as recited in independent claims
1 and 14; the limitation of a particular policy feature comprising “an aggregate
bandwidth limit feature” as recited in claim 11; the limitation of “a service class
selection feature” as recited in claims 12 and 31; and the limitation of “a policy
server associated with said signaling intercept processor” as recited in claim 14?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following (FF):
1. Buyukkoc teaches that the Routing Status Database (RSD) contains
connectivity information, alternate route information, information on the
capacity of each route, and status of all the routes in the network, the data
needed to manage routing features based on some rule or logic (col. 14, ll. 9-
25 and Tables VII-IX show a sample RSD for the network).
2. Buyukkoc further teaches that Table VII contains information about the
current usage of the α-link routes and contains three congestion status
ranges, referred to as “green,” “yellow,” and “red” (col. 14, ll. 25-39).
3. Buyukkoc teaches that “green” means that there is plenty of capacity left,
“yellow” means that the link is congested and alternate routes should be
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

10
used, and “red” means avoid using this route if at all possible (col. 14, ll. 39-
44).
4. Buyukkoc further teaches that if a call arrives and all possible paths are
“red,” the call may be blocked depending on its priority (col. 14, ll. 43-44).
5. Buyukkoc also teaches a “Class-of-Service” indicator in addition to “the
origination and the destination information for the call” (emphasis added)
(col. 18, ll. 24-29).
6. Buyukkoc teaches that the RSD uses the route status in Table IX to give
priority to more important calls (col. 18, ll. 29-30).
7. Buyukkoc teaches that if the route status is green, any call can use the route
(col. 18, ll. 30-32).
8. Buyukkoc further teaches that if the route status is yellow, only high priority
calls can use the route, and if the status is red, only the most critical calls can
use the route (col. 18, ll. 32-34).
9. Buyukkoc teaches that when a new call arrives (i.e., call from a subscriber)
at originating switch 270, the switch determines that the call is destined for
switch 220, and the (origination, destination) information is passed to the
RSD, which contains the information shown in Tables VII-IX (col. 17, ll.
31-34).
10. Buyukkoc teaches that if there are different bandwidth requirements
associated with different types of calls, those are also passed to the RSD
(col. 17, ll. 34-37).
11. Buyukkoc teaches that the RSD uses the information in Table IX to
determine that the best route from switch 220 (i.e., subscriber) to switch 270
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

11
is B2, with a congestion status of “green” (col. 17, ll. 37-39).
12. Buyukkoc explicitly states that “the same server may provide RSD and SCP
functionality” (emphasis added) (col. 11, ll. 14-15).
13. Buyukkoc teaches that the Centralized Fabric Network Interface (CFNI)
collects information from Fabric Network Interface (FNI) that is present in
each of the edge nodes, calculates the bandwidth used for all links, and
computes a link status which then sends the information back to each FNI
(emphasis added) (col. 2, ll. 37-52).
14. Buyukkoc teaches that the CFNI functionality can reside in a network
database such as an SCP (col. 10, ll. 16, 18), and that the CFNI is an
example of an RSD (col. 10, ll. 55-57).
15. Buyukkoc teaches that the CFNI is a central RSD (CRSD) (i.e., CRSDS 630
in Figure 6 and CRSDS 730 in Figure 7).
16. Buyukkoc discloses policy profiles for allowing an originating call to
connect. Examples of such policies include the determination of a route
congestion status. Even if the route congestion status is red, connection is
permitted if the call is a high priority call in part based on the aggregate
bandwidth feature (col. 13, ll. 32-47 and col. 13, ll. 66-67).
17. Claim 11 only requires that the “particular policy features comprises an
aggregate bandwidth limit feature.”
18. Buyukkoc further teaches that the CFNI or the central RSD (i.e., policy
server) is performing “class-of-service” in a packet transport network (col.
10, ll. 52-57).
19. Buyukkoc teaches that the edge nodes 720 are connected to the regional
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

12
routing status databases RRSDS 740 which are in turn connected to CRSDS
730 (col. 13, ll. 23-47 and Fig. 7) and when the edge node receives a new
call, it forwards the information to CRSDS (col. 19, ll. 18-54).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the
claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art
reference.” Verdegaal Bros. Inc., v. Union Oil Co. of Calif., 814 F.2d 628, 631
(Fed. Cir. 1987).

ANALYSIS
1. Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 31
Buyukkoc teaches that the Routing Status Database (RSD) contains
connectivity information, alternate route information, information on the capacity
of each route, and status of all the routes in the network, the data needed to manage
routing features based on some rule or logic (FF 1). Buyukkoc further teaches that
Table VII contains information about the current usage of the α-link routes and
contains three congestion status ranges, referred to as “green,” “yellow,” and “red”
(FF 2). Buyukkoc teaches that “green” means that there is plenty of capacity left,
“yellow” means that the link is congested and alternate routes should be used, and
“red” means avoid using this route if at all possible (FF 3). Buyukkoc further
teaches that if a call arrives and all possible paths are “red,” the call may be
blocked depending on its priority (FF 4). Buyukkoc also teaches a “Class-of-
Service” indicator in addition to “the origination and the destination information
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

13
for the call” (FF 5). Buyukkoc teaches that the RSD uses the route status in Table
IX to give priority to more important calls (FF 6). Buyukkoc teaches that if the
route status is green, any call can use the route (FF 7). Buyukkoc further teaches
that if the route status is yellow, only high priority calls can use the route, and if
the status is red, only the most critical calls can use the route (FF 8).
Thus, Buyukkoc teaches at least one policy profile (i.e., “Class-of-Service”
indicator for determining whether an originating call will be connected to its
destination based on priority) associated with a plurality of policy features (i.e.,
connectivity information, alternate route information, information on the capacity
of each route, and status of all the routes in the network and more particularly
Tables VII-IX delineating the policy features associated with the “Class-of-
Service” priority profile). Accordingly, we do not agree with Appellants that the
colors associated with congestion (i.e., green, yellow, and red) do not constitute a
priority rule/policy or quality of service rule/policy (Br. 19).
We also do not agree with Appellants that Tables VII-IX of the RSD server
730, store information regarding the status of links and routes in ATM network 20,
which is not associated with a subscriber (Br. 11). Buyukkoc specifically teaches
that when a new call arrives (i.e., call from a subscriber) at originating switch 270,
the switch determines that the call is destined for switch 220, and the (origination,
destination) information is passed to the RSD, which contains the information
shown in Tables VII-IX (FF 9). Buyukkoc teaches that if there are different
bandwidth requirements associated with different types of calls, those are also
passed to the RSD (FF 10). Buyukkoc teaches that the RSD uses the information
in Table IX to determine that the best route from switch 220 (i.e., subscriber) to
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

14
switch 270 is B2, with a congestion status of “green” (FF 11). Thus, clearly Tables
VII-IX of the RSD server 730 store information which is associated with a
subscriber placing a new call at originating switch 220.
We also do not agree with Appellants that Buyukkoc does not disclose or
suggest that the RSD is an SCP, much like Appellants’ Multi-Service Control Point
(MSCP), because in column 11, lines 13-15, Buyukkoc discloses that the RSD is
accessed after the SCP, and thus, the RSD and the SCP are two separate devices
(Br. 16-17). Buyukkoc explicitly states that “the same server may provide RSD
and SCP functionality” (emphasis added) (FF 12). It follows, that the RSD server
730 can also provide SCP functionality.
Furthermore, Buyukkoc teaches that the Centralized Fabric Network
Interface (CFNI) collects information from Fabric Network Interface (FNI) that is
present in each of the edge nodes, calculates the bandwidth used for all links, and
computes a link status which then sends the information back to each FNI (FF 13).
Buyukkoc teaches that the CFNI functionality can reside in a network database
such as an SCP, and that the CFNI is an example of an RSD (FF 14). Even more
particularly, Buyukkoc teaches that the CFNI is a central RSD (CRSD) (FF 15).
Accordingly, the CRSDS 730 is a CFNI or an SCP. The Examiner appropriately
found that the CRSDS 730 or SCP constitutes a policy server because it computes
link statuses for determining whether an originating call associated with a
subscriber at switch 220 can be permitted depending on particular policy profiles
(i.e., route congestion status and priority of call).
Furthermore with respect to claim 11, we don’t agree with Appellants’
argument that if Buyukkoc’s routing status database could reasonably be construed
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

15
as corresponding to the recited policy server then there would be no need for the
routing status database to receive the bandwidth requirements since the routing
status database would already contain this information (Br. 21). Buyukkoc
discloses policy profiles for allowing an originating call to connect. Examples of
such policies include the determination of a route congestion status. Even if the
route congestion status is red, connection is permitted if the call is a high priority
call in part based on the aggregate bandwidth feature (FF 16). Claim 11 only
requires that the “particular policy features comprises an aggregate bandwidth limit
feature” (FF 17). Nothing in claim 11 precludes that the “aggregate bandwidth
limit feature” is calculated in order for the policy profiles to calculate the route
congestion status instead of being predetermined or static. In other words, nothing
in the claim language precludes the dynamic calculation of the bandwidth limit.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants’ argument with respect to claim 12.
Appellants argued that the Examiner’s interpretation of the section of column 10,
lines, 50-55 does not disclose the claimed feature of a policy server with the
particular policy feature of “a service class selection” (Br. 22-23). Instead,
Appellants argue that Buyukkoc discloses that the RSD performs out-of-network
routing, class-of-service, and capacity management in a packet transport network
(Br. 22). As we stated supra, Buyukkoc teaches that the CFNI is a central RSD
(CRSDS) 730 or an SCP which constitutes a policy server (FF 14-15). Buyukkoc
further teaches that the CFNI or the central RSD (i.e., policy server) is performing
“class-of-service” in a packet transport network (FF 18). Thus, Buyukkoc does
disclose a particular policy feature of “a service class selection” as recited in claim
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

16
12. For the same reason, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument with
respect to claim 31 (Br. 32-35).
With respect to claims 14-16 and 18, we are not persuaded by Appellants’
arguments for the same reasons as articulated supra with respect to claim 1. We
are also not persuaded by Appellants’ additional argument, that in column 13, lines
29-67, Buyukkoc does not disclose an RSD server 730 which is associated with a
signaling intercept processor, but rather, regional routing status database servers
(Br. 27). Buyukkoc teaches that the edge nodes 720 are connected to the regional
routing status databases RRSDS 740 which are in turn connected to CRSDS 730
and when the edge node receives a new call, it forwards the information to CRSDS
(FF 19). Thus, clearly the RRSDS 740 constitutes a signaling intercept processor,
and Buyukkoc teaches a policy server CRSDS associated with the signaling
intercept processor RRSDS.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5, 11, 12, 14-16, 18, and 31. Accordingly,
we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of those claims.

CONCLUSION
Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred by finding that
Buyukkoc teaches the limitation of a “policy server including at least one policy
profile associated with a plurality of policy features, each policy profile of the at
least one policy profile being associated with a subscriber” as recited in
independent claims 1 and 14; the limitation of a particular policy feature
comprising “an aggregate bandwidth limit feature” as recited in claim 11; the
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

17
limitation of “a service class selection feature” as recited in claims 12 and 31; and
the limitation of “a policy server associated with said signaling intercept
processor” as recited in claim 14. Thus, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 11,
12, 14, and 31 and claims 2-3, 5, 15-16, 18 which fall with claims 1 and 14 is
sustained.

OBVIOUSNESS
ISSUES
2. Rejection of claims 4 and 17
Appellants contend that Noake does not disclose the claim 4 limitations of
propagating a signaling message, which comprises a Release message, to a policy
server and determining in the policy server, based at least in part on the signaling
message, which comprises a Release message, if a particular policy feature of a
plurality of policy features is to be invoked (Br. 36). Appellants contend that
Noake merely discloses the transmission of a Release message to an ATM network
220 (col. 8, lines 25-39) (Br. 36). Appellants state that, even assuming that Noake
could reasonably be construed as disclosing the above stated limitations, one
skilled in the art would not have been motivated to incorporate the release message
of Noake into Buyukkoc absent impermissible hindsight (Br. 36-37). Appellants
further characterize the Examiner’s motivation reciting “effective use of a band”
and stopping the cell assembling and disassembling processes as conclusory (Br.
37). Appellants assert that Noake does not disclose or suggest why one skilled in
the art would incorporate propagating a signaling message, which comprises a
Release message, to a policy server and determining in a policy server, based at
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

18
least in part of the signaling message if a particular policy feature of a plurality of
policy features is to be invoked, into Buyukkoc’s system (Br. 37-39).
The Examiner responds that Buyukkoc discloses the limitation of “a policy
server . . . to be invoke” [sic] (Ans. 38). The Examiner further states that it is also
well known and a fundamental step in telecommunication that when disconnecting
a call/connection, the signaling system (i.e. ATM signaling/SS7) releases allocated
resources by transmission of a Release message so that such recourses can be
reallocated to other users for other calls/connections (Ans. 38). The Examiner
finds that Noake simply further discloses a signaling message of Buyukkoc as a
specific “Release message” (Noake’s Fig. 4, indicating a RELEASE message; col.
8, ll. 9-39). The Examiner further responds that the motivational statement is that
the release message would make effective use of the band and notify to stop the
cell assembling and disassembling processes (Noake col. 2, line 55-64; col. 8, line
19-24) (Ans. 38-39).
Appellants repeat the same arguments for claim 17 (Br. 39-43).
The issue before us, then, is as follows:
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner erred by determining that the
Buyukkoc and Noake combination teaches the limitation of “propagating said
signaling message to a policy server, said policy server including at least one
policy profile associated with a plurality of policy features, each policy profile . . .
feature of the plurality of policy features is to be invoked” as recited in claims 1
and 14 and the limitation of “wherein said signaling message comprises a Release
message” as recited in claims 4 and 17? and did the Examiner articulate a
motivation for combining the references?
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

19
3. Rejection of claims 6, 8, and 9
With respect to claim 6, Appellants argue that Christie does not teach “a
policy server that includes at least one policy profile associated with a plurality of
policy features, which comprises a particular policy feature comprising a source
address validation feature” (Br. 44). In other words, Appellants argue that Christie
does not teach the limitations of both claims 1 and 6. Appellants further state that
the Examiner’s motivation is conclusory (Br. 44). Appellants assert that the
articulated motivation of validating the calls and generating a billing record as
stated in Christie (col. 3, ll. 12-22 and col. 7, ll. 39-45) is conclusory and based on
hindsight. Appellants further assert that Buyukkoc does not express such a desire
(Br. 45). Appellants repeat the same arguments for claims 8 and 9 (Br. 45-49).
The Examiner responds that Christie teaches a source/destination address
validation (col. 7, ll. 9-19, and 35-45; validating caller number ANI and verifying a
dial number) (Ans. 40). Furthermore, the Examiner responds that the motivation to
combine recited was that Christie’s teaching would provide Buyukkoc validation
of calls and generation of billing records (Ans. 41). The Examiner states that the
motivation is found in Christie, and not based on hindsight, and there is no
requirement that Buyukkoc express a desire for the modification (Ans. 40-42).
The issue then is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in
reciting as motivation to combine Christie’s teaching of call validation and
generation of billing records with Buyukkoc.
4. Rejection of claims 19-21
Appellants essentially argue that Christie does not teach the combined
features of claims 14, 18, and 19 (Br. 49-51). Appellants further argue that there is
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

20
no motivation to combine the references, and that the Examiner’s purported
motivation is based on hindsight (Br. 52-53).
The Examiner responds that Buyukkoc discloses accessing the ATM
network through a particular network port associated with the CPE (Fig. 9,
accessing switch 922 through the trunk/port 932; col. 20, lines 1-10) (Ans. 42).
The Examiner further states that source and destination addresses
validation/screening are well known in signaling (i.e. ATM signaling/SS7), in
order to identify the caller validity (Ans. 42). The Examiner asserts that a source
address validation for ensuring that the party is an authorized party for accessing
the network is well known in the art of signaling in order to establish the call (Ans.
42-43). In particular, Christie teaches a source address validation for ensuring that
said party is an authorized party for accessing the ATM network (Fig. 7; see col. 7,
lines 9-19, 35-45; checking/validating caller number in AN1 for verification for
accessing the ATM network) (Ans. 43). The Examiner concludes that it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to validate/verify the caller number to access the ATM network, as
taught by Christie in the system of Buyukkoc, for validating the call and generating
a billing record (Christie col. 3, lines 12-22; col. 7, lines 39-45) (Ans. 43).
The issue then is, again, whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in reciting as motivation to combine Christie’s teaching of call validation and
generation of billing records with Buyukkoc.
5. Rejection of claims 23 and 24
Appellants make substantially the same arguments as above, wherein
Christie does not teach the combined features of claims 14, 18, and 23 (Br. 53-57).
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

21
Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to combine the references, and
that the Examiner’s purported motivation is based on hindsight (Br. 57-59).
The Examiner similarly responds as above, that the limitations of claims 14
and 18 are taught by Buykkoc (Ans. 44). The Examiner further finds that Christie
teaches the limitation of claim 23 of a destination address screening for defining a
plurality of address to which the party can effectuate the call (Fig. 7; col. 7, ll. 9-
19, 35-45; col. 15, ll. 40-60; col. 2, ll. 1-15; verifying a dial number from the list of
numbers where the call needs to be connected). The Examiner concludes that it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to validate/verify the caller number to access the ATM
network, as taught by Christie in the system of Buyukkoc, for validating the call
and generating a billing record (Christie col. 3, line 12-22; col. 7, line 39-45) (Ans.
43).
The issue then is whether the Examiner erred by finding that Christie teaches
the limitation of “a destination address screening feature for defining a plurality of
addresses to which said party can effectuate said call” and articulating the
motivation of call validation and generation of billing records as taught by Christie.
6. Rejection of claim 25
Appellants make substantially the same arguments as above, wherein
Christie does not teach the combined features of claims 14, 18, and 25 (Br. 59-62).
Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to combine the references, and
that the Examiner’s purported motivation is based on hindsight (Br. 62-63).
The Examiner similarly responds as above, that the limitations of claims 14
and 18 are taught by Buykkoc (Ans. 45). The Examiner further finds that Christie
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

22
teaches the limitation of claim 25 of a source address screening feature for defining
a plurality of addresses from which the party can initiate the call (Fig. 7; col. 7, ll.
9-19, 35-45; col. 15, ll. 40-60; col. 2, ll. 1-15; verifying a dial number from the list
of numbers from a list of numbers to initiate a call/connection). The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to validate/verify the caller number to access the
ATM network, as taught by Christie in the system of Buyukkoc, for validating the
call and generating a billing record (Christie col. 3, line 12-22; col. 7, line 39-45)
(Ans. 43).
The issue then is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred by
finding that Christie teaches the limitation of “a source address screening feature
for defining a plurality of addresses from which said call can be initiated to said
party” and articulating the motivation of call validation and generation of billing
records as taught by Christie.
7. Rejection of claims 7 and 22
With respect to claim 7, Appellants make similar arguments as above,
wherein Farris does not teach the combined features of claims 1, 5, and 7 (Br. 63-
64). Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to combine the references,
and that the Examiner’s purported motivation is based on hindsight (Br. 64-65).
With respect to claim 22, Appellants make similar arguments as above,
wherein Farris does not teach the combined features of claims 14, 18, and 22 (Br.
65-66). Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to combine the
references, and that the Examiner’s purported motivation is based on hindsight (Br.
66-68).
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

23
The Examiner similarly responds as above, that the limitations of claims 1
and 5 (Ans. 46-47) and the limitations of claims 14 and 18 (Ans. 48-49) are taught
by Buykkoc. The Examiner further finds that Farris teaches the limitation of claim
7 of maximum call attempt rate (col. 14, ll. 1-12 and col. 11, ll. 5-17;
acceptable/maximum specified rate of call attempts) (Ans. 47). The Examiner
further finds that Farris teaches the limitation of claim 22 of maximum call attempt
rate limit for monitoring the number of setup messages received from the party
over a predetermined period of time (col. 14, ll. 1-12 and col. 11, ll. 5-56;
acceptable/maximum specified rate of call attempts for monitoring and
determining the number of setup/ISUP messages from the calling time per time
period) (Ans. 49). The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide
acceptable/maximum specified rate of call attempts, as taught by Farris in the
system of Buyukkoc, to detect the predetermined events and/or imminence of
predetermined events, and then block or control those events from their incipiency
(Farris col. 14, line 1-6) (Ans. 47 and 49).
The issue then is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred by
finding that Farris teaches the limitations of “maximum call attempt rate limit” and
“maximum call attempt rate limit feature for monitoring the number of Setup
messages received from said party over a predetermined period of time” and
articulating the motivation of providing acceptable/maximum specified rate of call
attempts, as taught by Farris in the system of Buyukkoc, to detect the
predetermined events and/or imminence of predetermined events, and then block
or control those events from their incipiency as taught by Farris.
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

24
8. Rejection of claim 10
Appellants make similar arguments as above, wherein VanDervort does not
teach the combined features of claims 1, 5, and 10 (Br. 68-69). Appellants also
argue that Horn does not teach the combined features of claims 1, 5, and 10 (Br.
70-71). Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to combine the
references, and that the Examiner’s purported motivation is based on hindsight (Br.
69-70 and 71-72).
The Examiner similarly responds as above, that the limitations of claims 1
and 5 (Ans. 50-51) are taught by Buykkoc.
The Examiner further finds that Farris teaches the limitation of claim 10 of
maximum burst size limit/threshold feature (col. 6, ll. 8-11; limited/maximum burst
size limit/threshold of user cell transmission for policing) (Ans. 51). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to provide limited/maximum burst
size, as taught by VanDervort in the system of Buyukkoc, to control the flow of
traffic and maximize utilization of the network resources (VanDervort col. 6, ll. 1-
3) (Ans. 51-52).
The Examiner, in an alternative rejection, also finds that Horn teaches a
maximum size limit/threshold feature (Horn col. 2, ll. 29-30) (Ans. 53). The
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to provide maximum burst length
threshold, as taught by Horn in the system of Buyukkoc, to avoid overflow
problems due to long bursts (Horn col. 1, ll. 25-34) (Ans. 51-52).
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

25
The issue then is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred by
finding that VanDervort teaches the limitations of “maximum burst size feature”
and articulating the motivation of controlling the flow of traffic and maximize the
utilization of resources, as taught by VanDervort in the system of Buyukkoc.
On the alternative rejection of claim 10 with Horn, the issue is whether
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred by finding that Horn teaches the
limitations of “maximum burst size feature” and articulating the motivation of
avoiding overflow problems due to long bursts, as taught by Horn in the system of
Buyukkoc.
9. Rejection of claims 13 and 38
Appellants argue with respect to claim 13, that Basso does not teach the
combined features of claims 1 and 5 (Br. 72-73). Appellants similarly argue with
respect to claim 38, that Basso does not teach the combined features of claims 14
and 18 (Br. 74-75). Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to
combine the references, and that the Examiner’s purported motivation is based on
hindsight (Br. 73-74 and 75-77).
The Examiner similarly responds as above, that the limitations of claims 1
and 5 (Ans. 54-55) as well as the limitations of 14 and 18 (Ans. 56-57) are taught
by Buykkoc.
The Examiner finds that Buyukkoc discloses a policy feature comprising a
maximum call limit feature (col. 14, ll. 15-65; acceptable/maximum call
load/limit/bandwidth) (Ans. 55). The Examiner asserts that ATM network having
a maximum concurrent call limit/threshold for call admission control (CAC) is
well known in the art (Ans. 55). The Examiner supports that assertion, with
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

26
Basso’s teaching of a maximum concurrent call limit feature (col. 4, ll. 25-35;
maximum allowed/limit number of concurrent connection/call) (Ans. 55). The
Examiner articulates as motivation to combine the references, that it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to provide maximum concurrent connection, as taught by Basso in the
system of Buyukkoc, for controlling concurrent connections/calls to provide
efficient protection against signaling congestion (Basso col. 2, ll. 35-45) (Ans. 55).
The issue then is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred by
finding that Basso teaches the limitation of “maximum concurrent call limit” and
whether the motivation articulated by the Examiner of controlling concurrent
connections/calls to provide efficient protection against signaling congestion is
conclusory and based on hindsight.
10. Rejection of claims 27-29
Appellants argue with respect to claim 27, that Kobayashi does not teach the
combined features of claims 14 and 18 (Br. 77-78). Appellants further argue that
there is no motivation to combine the references, and that the Examiner’s
purported motivation is based on hindsight (Br. 78-80).
The Examiner similarly responds as above, that the limitations of claims 14
and 18 (Ans. 59) are taught by Buykkoc.
The Examiner finds that Buyukkoc discloses a policy feature comprising a
maximum burst size limit feature (col. 14, ll. 15-65; acceptable/maximum load/size
before the call is blocked) (Ans. 59). The Examiner finds that Kobayashi teaches a
maximum burst size limit feature for limiting a burst-size request associated with
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

27
the call (see Fig. 6; col. 12, l. 55-col. 13, l. 35; a limiting/setting/changing the
number of cells transmitted in each call) (Ans. 60).
The Examiner articulates to limit the number of cells transmitted in each
call, as taught by Kobayashi in the system of Buyukkoc, so that it would provide a
flow control performed cooperatively by the network and the terminal equipment
and call accepted control is simplified (Kobayashi col. 7, ll. 46-52; col. 8, ll. 40-
45).
The issue then is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred by
finding that Basso teaches the limitation of “maximum burst size limit feature for
limiting a burst-size request associated with said call” and whether the motivation
articulated by the Examiner of providing flow control performed cooperatively by
the network and the terminal equipment and simplifying call accepted control is
conclusory and based on hindsight.
11. Rejection of claims 32 and 33-37
Appellants argue with respect to claims 32 and 33, that the Examiner’s
reliance on Buyukkoc (col. 1, ll. 50-60) for the service class feature of constant bit
rate (CBR) and variable bit rate service (VBR) is misplaced because this disclosure
is under the “BACKGROUND” section of the invention (Br. 81, 82, and 83).
Appellants further argue that this section does not disclose the combined features
of claim 14, 18, and 31 (Br. 81).
With respect to claims 32 and 33, the Examiner similarly responds as above,
that the limitations of claims 14 and 31 (Ans. 61-62) are taught by Buykkoc. The
Examiner finds that Buykkoc teaches the service class feature of constant bit rate
(CBR) and variable bit rate service (VBR) (col. 1, ll. 50-60) (Ans. 61-62).
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

28
With respect to claims 32 and 33-35, the issue is whether Appellants have
shown that the Examiner erred by finding that Buyukkoc teaches the service class
feature of constant bit rate (CBR) and variable bit rate service (VBR).
With respect to claims 36 and 37, Appellants argue that Kilkki does not
teach the combined features of claims 14, 18, and 31 (Br. 83-84 and 85-86).
Appellants further argue that there is no motivation to combine the references, and
that the Examiner’s purported motivation is based on hindsight (Br. 84-85 and 87-
88).
The Examiner similarly responds as above, that the limitations of claims 14,
18, and 31 (Ans. 59) are taught by Buykkoc.
The Examiner finds that Kilkki teaches the ATM class services of
unspecified bit-rate (UBR) and available bit-rate (ABR) (col. 1, ll. 54-67) (Ans.
62).
The Examiner articulates as a motivation that it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide
quality of service class defined by ATM standards of UBR and ABR, as taught by
Kilkki in the system of Buyukkoc, to provide a capability to manage increases in
network load, supporting both real-time and non-real time application, and
offering, in certain circumstances, a guaranteed level service quality (Kilkki col. 1,
line 44-53), and furthermore by using the ATM standard services, to enable the
service provider to interoperate between multi-vendor networks (Ans. 62, 63, and
64).
The issue then, with respect to claims 36-37, is whether Appellants have
shown that the Examiner erred by finding that Kilkki teaches the ATM class
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

29
services of unspecified bit-rate (UBR) and available bit-rate (ABR) and whether
the motivation articulated by the Examiner of providing a capability to manage
increases in network load, supporting both real-time and non-real time application,
and enabling the service provider to interoperate between multi-vendor networks is
conclusory and based on hindsight.
12. Rejection of claims 39, 40-43, 45, 50, and 58
Appellants argue that Buyukkoc does not disclose all the features of the
claim 39 and that Gai does not remedy the deficiencies because the Examiner’s
articulated motivation is conclusory and based on hindsight (Br. 85-95).
The Examiner responds that Buyukkoc teaches the limitation of “said policy
server including at least one policy profile having a plurality of policy profiles, the
at least one policy being associated with a subscriber,” as particularly and
extensively explained supra (Ans. 66). The Examiner further explains how the
limitations of claim 39 were met by Buyukkoc, which we agree with and adopt
them as our own, but do not repeat them herein (Br. 65-66). Gai was introduced by
the Examiner for the limitation of a policy feature including at least one of a
destination address screening feature for a group of subscribers to which the party
belongs or a source address screening feature for the group of subscribers. The
Examiner finds that Gai teaches a policy server (Fig. 4, policy server 322)
comprising the particular policy feature (Fig. 4, Policy Rule generation engine 414,
policy translator 410, and device-specific filtering entity; Gai col. 13, l. 61 to col.
14, l. 5) including at least one of a destination screening feature for a group of
subscribers to which the party belongs or a source address screening feature for the
group of subscribers (Gai col. 14, ll. 1-15, col. 14, l. 56-col. 15, l. 55; applying
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

30
source or destination addressing policy rule to a group of users (Fig. 7A, marking
users, admin users, executive users, etc.) where a specific user (Fig. 7A, John Doe)
belongs (col. 14, ll. 10- 18) (Ans. 20). The Examiner articulates as a motivation to
combine the references that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide one of a destination
screening feature for a group of subscribers to which the party belongs or a source
address screening feature for the group of subscribers, as taught by Gai in the
system of Buyukkoc, so as to allocate network services and resources by applying
high-level quality of service policies ( Gai col. 5, ll. 45-55) (Ans. 20).
Furthermore, with respect to claim 58, the Examiner finds that Buyukkoc
teaches a service class selection feature for specifying a service class with respect
to a network port used by the party (col. 10, ll. 50-55; col. 18, ll. 26-45; Fig. 9,
trunk/port 932, col. 20, ll. 1-10; selecting a class-of-service for a
port/link/trunk/circuit used by the call) (Ans. 68).
The issue then is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred by
finding that the combination of Buyukkoc and Gai teaches all the limitations of
claims 39 and 58 and whether the articulated motivation is conclusory and based
on hindsight.
13. Regarding claim 44
Appellants argue that Noake does not disclose the combined features of
claims 39 and 44 (Br. 97 and 98). Appellants further argue that the articulated
motivation is conclusory and based on hindsight.
The Examiner responds that Noake teaches the release message and repeats
the same line of reasoning as stated supra in section 2.
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

31
The issue then is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred by
finding that the combination of Buyukkoc, Gai and Noake teaches all the
limitations of claims 39 and 44 and whether the articulated motivation is
conclusory and based on hindsight.
14. Regarding claim 49
Appellants argue that Farris does not disclose the combined features of
claims 39, 45, and 49 (Br. 100-101). Appellants further argue that the articulated
motivation is conclusory and based on hindsight.
The Examiner responds that Farris teaches the release message and repeats
the same line of reasoning as stated supra in section 7.
The issue then is whether the Examiner erred by finding that the
combination of Buyukkoc, Gai and Farris teaches all the limitations of claims 39,
45, and 49 and whether the articulated motivation is conclusory and based on
hindsight.
15. Rejection of claims 59, 60-62, 63, and 64
Appellants substantially repeat the same arguments as stated in section 11
regarding claims 32 and 33-37. The Examiner re-iterates the same Findings of
Facts as those found for claims 32 and 33-37.
Thus, the first issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred by finding that Buyukkoc teaches the service class feature of constant bit rate
(CBR) and variable bit rate service (VBR). The second issue is whether
Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred by finding that Kilkki teaches the
ATM class services of unspecified bit-rate (UBR) and available bit-rate (ABR) and
whether the motivation articulated by the Examiner of providing a capability to
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

32
manage increases in network load, supporting both real-time and non-real time
application, and enabling the service provider to interoperate between multi-vendor
networks is conclusory and based on hindsight.

FINDINGS OF FACT
The relevant facts include the following (FF):
20. Buyukkoc further teaches determining in the CRSDS server (i.e., policy
server), based on the new call and related information including source and
destination, priority of the call, and bandwidth required by the call (col. 19,
ll. 26-31) (i.e., signaling message) if a particular policy feature of the
plurality of policy features is to be invoked (determining the policy features
in the Routing Status Database (RSD) that need to be invoked; see FF 1 and
also see col. 19, ll. 35-42 and col. 17, ll. 31-48).
21. The Examiner found that Buyukkoc teaches how to route the call in
accordance to RSD contents by determining and triggering particular
specific quality-of-service rule/policy of connection for a received call (Ans.
5; citing Fig. 8, step 840; Fig. 10, steps 1035, 1040; col. 13, ll. 1-7; col. 13, l.
64-col. 14, l. 67 and Tables VII-IX).
22. Noake discloses a signaling message of Buyukkoc as a specific “Release
message” which is a disconnection signal (Noake’s Fig. 4, indicating a
RELEASE message; col. 8, ll. 9-39).
23. Noake teaches that the release message would make effective use of band
and the respective apparatus by transmitting connection information, and by
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

33
sending/receiving a release message it will notify to stop the cell assembling
and disassembling processes (col. 2, ll. 55-64; col. 8, ll. 19-24).
24. Christie teaches a source/destination address validation (col. 7, ll. 9-19, and
35-45) for validating caller number ANI, verifying a dial number and
generating a billing record (col. 3, ll. 12-22 and col. 7, ll. 39-45).
25. Buyukkoc discloses accessing the ATM network through a particular
network port associated with the CPE (Fig. 9, accessing switch 922 through
the trunk/port 932; col. 20, ll. 1-10).
26. Christie teaches a source address validation for ensuring that the party is an
authorized party for accessing the ATM network (Fig. 7; see col. 7, ll. 9-19,
35-45; checking/validating caller number in AN1 for verification for
accessing the ATM network).
27. Christie teaches a destination/source address screening for defining a
plurality of addresses to which the party can effectuate/initiate the call (Fig.
7; col. 7, ll. 9-19, 35-45; col. 15, ll. 40-60; col. 2, ll. 1-15; verifying a dial
number from the list of numbers where the call needs to be connected and
verifying a dial number from the list of numbers from a list of numbers to
initiate a call/connection).
28. Farris teaches a maximum call attempt rate (col. 14, ll. 1-12 and col. 11, ll.
5-17; acceptable/maximum specified rate of call attempts).
29. Farris teaches a maximum call attempt rate limit for monitoring the number
of setup messages received from the party over a predetermined period of
time (col. 14, ll. 1-12 and col. 11, ll. 5-56; acceptable/maximum specified
rate of call attempts for monitoring and determining the number of
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

34
setup/ISUP messages from the calling time per time period).
30. Farris teaches that providing acceptable/maximum specified rate of call
attempts allows for detecting the predetermined events and/or imminence of
predetermined events, and then blocking or controlling those events from
their incipiency (col. 14, ll. 1-6).
31. VanDervort teaches the feature of a maximum burst size limit/threshold
feature (col. 6, ll. 8-11; limited/maximum burst size limit/threshold of user
cell transmission for policing).
32. VanDervort teaches that providing limited/maximum burst size controls the
flow of traffic and maximizes utilization of the network resources (col. 6, ll.
1-3).
33. Horn teaches a maximum size limit/threshold feature (col. 2, ll. 29-30).
34. Horn teaches that providing maximum burst length threshold avoids
overflow problems due to long bursts (col. 1, ll. 25-34).
35. Buyukkoc discloses a policy feature comprising a maximum call limit
feature ((col. 14, ll. 15-65); load balancing based on capacity to avoid
overload).
36. Basso teaches maximum concurrent call limit feature (col. 4, ll. 25-35; “call
setup threshold” defines a maximum allowed number of calls at a given
time).
37. Basso teaches that controlling concurrent connections/calls provides
efficient protection against signaling congestion (col. 2, ll. 35-45).
38. Kobayashi teaches a maximum burst size limit feature for limiting a burst-
size request associated with a call (see Fig. 6; col. 12, l. 55-col. 13, l. 35; a
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

35
limiting/setting/changing the number of cells transmitted in each call).
39. Kobayashi teaches that the maximum burst size limit feature limits the
number of cells transmitted in each call providing a flow control performed
cooperatively by the network and the terminal equipment and simplifies call
accepted control (col. 7, ll. 46-52; col. 8, ll. 40-45).
40. Buykkoc teaches the service class feature of constant bit rate (CBR) and
variable bit rate service (VBR) (col. 1, ll. 50-60).
41. Kilkki teaches the ATM class services of unspecified bit-rate (UBR) and
available bit-rate (ABR) (col. 1, ll. 54-67).
42. Kilkki teaches that ATM standards of UBR and ABR would provide the
capability to manage increases in network load, supporting both real-time
and non-real time application, and offering, in certain circumstances, a
guaranteed level service quality (col. 1, line 44-53).
43. The Examiner finds that using the ATM standard services to enable the
service provider to interoperate between multi-vendor networks (Ans. 62,
63, and 64). This finding is based on a common sense line of reasoning.
44. The Examiner finds that Gai teaches a policy server (Fig. 4, policy server
322) comprising the particular policy feature (Fig. 4, Policy Rule generation
engine 414, policy translator 410, and device-specific filtering entity; col.
13, l. 61 to col. 14, l. 5) including at least one of a destination screening
feature for a group of subscribers to which the party belongs or a source
address screening feature for the group of subscribers (col. 14, ll. 1-15, col.
14, l. 56-col. 15, l. 55; applying source or destination addressing policy rule
to a group of users (Fig. 7A, marking users, admin users, executive users,
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

36
etc.) where a specific user (Fig. 7A, John Doe) belongs (col. 14, ll. 10- 18)
(Ans. 20).
45. The Examiner finds that Gai teaches that providing one of a destination
screening feature for a group of subscribers to which the party belongs or a
source address screening feature for the group of subscribers, allocates
network services and resources by applying high-level quality of service
policies (col. 5, ll. 45-55) (Ans. 20).
46. Buyukkoc teaches a service class selection feature for specifying a service
class with respect to a network port used by the party (col. 10, ll. 50-55; col.
18, ll. 26-45; Fig. 9, trunk/port 932, col. 20, ll. 1-10; selecting a class-of-
service for a port/link/trunk/circuit used by the call).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner bears the initial burden of presenting a prima facie case of
obviousness. In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir. 1992). If that burden is
met, then the burden shifts to the Appellants to overcome the prima facie case with
argument and/or evidence. Id. The Supreme Court, citing In re Kahn, 441 F.3d
977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006), stated that “‘ [r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot
be sustained by mere conclusory statements; instead, there must be some
articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.’” KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418
(2007). However, “the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

37
employ.” Id.
Motivation to combine can be found either in the references themselves or in
the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Fine, 837 F.2d 1071 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually
where . . . the rejections are based on combinations of references.” In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
“The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary
reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference
…. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Id. at 425.

Any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a
reconstruction based on hindsight reasoning, but so long as it takes
into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made and does
not include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure, such
a reconstruction is proper.

In re McLaughlin 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).

ANALYSIS
2. Rejection of claims 4 and 17
As stated supra, Buyukkoc teaches the limitation of a “policy server
including at least one policy profile associated with a plurality of policy
features, each policy profile of the at least one policy profile being
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

38
associated with a subscriber” (FF 1-15). Buyukkoc further teaches
determining in the CRSDS server (i.e., policy server), based on the new call
and related information including source and destination, priority of the call,
and bandwidth required by the call (i.e., signaling message) if a particular
policy feature of the plurality of policy features is to be invoked (FF 20).
Furthermore, the Examiner found and we agree, that Buyukkoc teaches how
to route the call in accordance to RSD contents by determining and
triggering particular specific quality-of-service rule/policy of connection for
a received call (FF 21). Thus, Buyukkoc teaches the limitation of a
“determining in said policy server, based at least in part on said signaling
message, if a particular policy feature of the plurality of policy features is to
be invoked” as recited in independent claims 1 and 14.
The Examiner asserted that is well known in the art that when disconnecting
a call/connection, the signaling system (i.e. ATM signaling/SS7) release allocated
resources by transmission of a Release message so that such recourses can be
reallocated to other users for other calls/connections (Ans. 38). The Examiner
supported that assertion with Noake’s teaching. Noake discloses a signaling
message of Buyukkoc as a specific “Release message” which is a disconnection
signal (FF 22).
Thus, Appellants’ argument that Noake does not teach the limitation of:
propagating said signaling message to a policy server, said
policy server including at least one policy profile associated with a
plurality of policy features, each policy profile of the at least one
policy profile being associated with a subscriber;
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

39
determining in said policy server, based at least in part on said
signaling message, if a particular policy feature of the plurality of
policy features is to be invoked;

as recited in claim 1 is not persuasive, because the Examiner relied on
Buyukkoc for those teachings, and as stated supra, one cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are
based on combinations of references. Keller, 642 F.2d at 425.
Furthermore, the Examiner articulated as a rationale to combine the
references that the release message would make effective use of band and the
respective apparatus by transmitting connection information, and by
sending/receiving a release message it will notify to stop the cell assembling and
disassembling processes (FF 23) (Ans. 38-39).
The articulated reasoning supports the legal conclusion of obviousness (i.e.,
effective use of band and notification to stop the cell assembling and disassembling
processes). KSR, 550 U.S. at 418. Furthermore, we do not agree that the
Examiner’s conclusion was based upon improper hindsight reasoning, because the
conclusion is based on the teaching provided by Noake. See McLaughlin 443 F.2d
at 1395.
Appellants repeat the same arguments for claim 17 as those articulated for
claim 4, accordingly we sustain that rejection based on the same reasoning as that
articulated supra.
3. Rejection of claims 6, 8, and 9
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because Christie teaches a
source/destination address validation (FF 24) and the Examiner’s articulated
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

40
reasoning to combine the references supports the legal conclusion of obviousness
(i.e., validating the calls and generating a billing record as taught by Christie
(FF24)). KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Furthermore, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually (i.e., Christie not teaching the limitations of claim 1) where the
rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e., Buyukkoc teaches the
limitations of claim 1, the Examiner relies on Christie for teaching the limitation of
claim 6). See Keller, 642 F.2d 425.
We also do not agree that the Examiner’s conclusion was based upon
improper hindsight reasoning, because the conclusion is based on the teaching
provided by Christie. See McLaughlin 443 F.2d at 1395.
Appellants repeat the same arguments for claims 8 and 9 as those articulated
for claim 6, accordingly we sustain that rejection based on the same reasoning as
that articulated supra.
4. Rejection of claims 19-21
Buyukkoc discloses accessing the ATM network through a particular
network port associated with the CPE (FF 25). We agree with the Examiner that
source and destination addresses validation/screening are well known in signaling
(i.e. ATM signaling/SS7), in order to identify the caller validity (Ans. 42). We
also agree with the Examiner that a source address validation for ensuring that the
party is an authorized party for accessing the network is well known in the art of
signaling in order to establish the call (Ans. 42-43). Christie expressly teaches a
source address validation for ensuring that the party is an authorized party for
accessing the ATM network (FF 26). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

41
onclusion that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time the invention was made to validate/verify the caller number to access the
ATM network, as taught by Christie in the system of Buyukkoc, for validating the
call and generating a billing record (FF 24).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments because
Christie teaches a source/destination address validation and the Examiner’s
articulated reasoning to combine supports the legal conclusion of obviousness (i.e.,
validating the calls and generating a billing record as taught by Christie. KSR, 550
U.S. at 418.
Furthermore, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually (i.e., Christie not teaching the limitations of claims 14 and 18) where
the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e., Buyukkoc teaches the
limitations of claim 14 and 18 as articulated supra, and the Examiner relies on
Christie for teaching the limitation of “source address validation feature” as recited
in claim 19). See Keller, 642 F.2d 425.
We also do not agree that the Examiner’s conclusion was based upon
improper hindsight reasoning, because the conclusion is based on the teaching
provided by Christie. See McLaughlin 443 F.2d at 1395.
Since Appellants presented no additional arguments with respect to claims
20 and 21, but rather rely on their dependency from claim 19, they also fall with
claim 19 from which they depend.
5. Rejection of claims 23 and 24
Christie teaches the limitation of claim 23 of a destination address screening
for defining a plurality of address to which the party can effectuate the call (FF
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

42
27). The Examiner articulated as a motivation to combine the references,
validating/verifying the caller number to access the ATM network, as taught by
Christie, for validating the call and generating a billing record in Buykkoc’s system
(motivation found in Christie; FF 24) (Ans. 43).
As we stated supra, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually (i.e., Christie not teaching the limitations of claims 14 and
18) where the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e., Buyukkoc
teaches the limitations of claim 14 and 18 as articulated supra, and the Examiner
relies on Christie for teaching the limitation of “a destination address screening
feature for defining a plurality of addresses to which said party can effectuate said
call” as recited in claim 23). See Keller, 642 F.2d 425.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning to combine the references
supports the legal conclusion of obviousness (i.e., validating the calls and
generating a billing record as taught by Christie (FF 24)). KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
We also do not agree that the Examiner’s conclusion was based upon
improper hindsight reasoning, because the conclusion is based on the teaching
provided by Christie. See McLaughlin 443 F.2d at 1395.
Since Appellants presented no additional arguments with respect to claim
24, but rather rely on their dependency from claim 23, claim 24 also falls with
claim 23 from which it depends.
6. Rejection of claim 25
The Examiner further finds that Christie teaches the limitation of claim 25 of
a source address screening feature for defining a plurality of addresses from which
the party can initiate the call (FF 27; verifying a dial number from the list of
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

43
numbers from a list of numbers to initiate a call/connection). The Examiner
articulated as a motivation to combine validating/verifying the caller number to
access the ATM network, as taught by Christie, for validating the call and
generating a billing record in Buykkoc’s system (motivation found in Christie; FF
24) (Ans. 43).
As we stated supra, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually (i.e., Christie not teaching the limitations of claims 14 and
18) where the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e., Buyukkoc
teaches the limitations of claim 14 and 18 as articulated supra, and the Examiner
relies on Christie for teaching the limitation of “a source address screening feature

for defining a plurality of addresses from which said call can be initiated to said
party” as recited in claim 25). See Keller, 642 F.2d 425.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning to combine the references
supports the legal conclusion of obviousness (i.e., validating the calls and
generating a billing record as taught by Christie (FF24)). KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
We also do not agree that the Examiner’s conclusion was based upon
improper hindsight reasoning, because the conclusion is based on the teaching
provided by Christie. See McLaughlin 443 F.2d at 1395.
7. Rejection of claims 7 and 22
Farris teaches the limitation of claim 7 of maximum call attempt rate (FF 28;
acceptable/maximum specified rate of call attempts). Farris further teaches the
limitation of claim 22 of maximum call attempt rate limit for monitoring the
number of setup messages received from the party over a predetermined period of
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

44
time (FF 29; acceptable/maximum specified rate of call attempts for monitoring
and determining the number of setup/ISUP messages from the calling time per
time period). The Examiner articulated as a motivation to combine the references
that providing acceptable/maximum specified rate of call attempts, as taught by
Farris in the system of Buyukkoc, would allow for detecting the predetermined
events and/or imminence of predetermined events, and then blocking or controlling
those events from their incipiency (FF 30).
As we stated supra, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually (i.e., Farris not teaching the limitations of claims 1 and 5
and also the limitations of claims 14 and 18) where the rejections are based on
combinations of references (i.e., Buyukkoc teaches the limitations of claims 1, 5,
14, and 18 as articulated supra, and the Examiner relies on Farris for teaching the
limitations of “maximum call attempt rate limit” and “maximum call attempt rate
limit feature for monitoring the number of Setup messages received from said
party over a predetermined period of time” as recited in claims 7 and 22,
respectively). See Keller, 642 F.2d 425.
We also do not agree that the Examiner’s conclusion was based upon
improper hindsight reasoning, because the conclusion is based on the teaching
provided by Farris. See McLaughlin 443 F.2d at 1395.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning to combine the references
supports the legal conclusion of obviousness (i.e., detecting the predetermined
events and/or imminence of predetermined events, and then blocking or controlling
those events from their incipiency (FF 30)). KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
8. Rejection of claim 10
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

45
VanDervort teaches the limitation of claim 10 of maximum burst size
limit/threshold feature (FF 31). The Examiner articulated as a motivation to
combine the references that providing limited/maximum burst size, as taught by
VanDervort in the system of Buyukkoc, would control the flow of traffic and
maximize utilization of the network resources (FF 32) (Ans. 51-52).
Horn teaches a maximum size limit/threshold feature (FF 33). The
Examiner articulated as a motivation to combine the references that providing
maximum burst length threshold, as taught by Horn in the system of Buyukkoc,
would avoid overflow problems due to long bursts (FF 34).

As we stated supra, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually (i.e., VanDervort or Horn not teaching the limitations of
claims 1 and 5) where the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e.,
Buyukkoc teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 5 as articulated supra, and the
Examiner relies on VanDervort or Horn for teaching the limitation of “maximum
burst size limit” as recited in claim 10). See Keller, 642 F.2d 425.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning to combine the references
supports the legal conclusion of obviousness (i.e., control the flow of traffic and
maximize utilization of the network resources (FF 32) or avoiding overflow
problems due to long bursts (FF 34). KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
We also do not agree that the Examiner’s conclusion was based upon
improper hindsight reasoning, because the conclusion is based on the teachings
provided by VanDervort or Horn. See McLaughlin 443 F.2d at 1395.
9. Rejection of claims 13 and 38
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

46
Buyukkoc discloses a policy feature comprising a maximum call limit
feature (FF 35). Basso teaches maximum concurrent call limit feature (FF 36).
The Examiner articulates as motivation to combine the references that it would
have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to provide maximum concurrent connection, as taught by Basso in the
system of Buyukkoc, for controlling concurrent connections/calls to provide
efficient protection against signaling congestion (FF 37).
As we stated supra, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually (i.e., Basso not teaching the limitations of claims 1 and 5 or
the limitations of 14 and 18) where the rejections are based on combinations of
references (i.e., Buyukkoc teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 5 and the
limitations of claims 14 and 18, as articulated supra, and the Examiner relies on
Basso for teaching the limitation of “maximum concurrent call limit feature” as
recited in claims 13 and 38). See Keller, 642 F.2d 425.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning to combine the references
supports the legal conclusion of obviousness (i.e., controlling concurrent
connections/calls to provide efficient protection against signaling congestion (FF
37). KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
We also do not agree that the Examiner’s conclusion was based upon
improper hindsight reasoning, because the conclusion is based on the teaching
provided by Basso. See McLaughlin 443 F.2d at 1395.
10. Rejection of claims 27-29
Kobayashi teaches a maximum burst size limit feature for limiting a burst-
size request associated with a call (FF 38).
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

47
The Examiner articulates as a motivation to combine the references that the
modification would limit the number of cells transmitted in each call, as taught by
Kobayashi in the system of Buyukkoc, and thus, would provide a flow control
performed cooperatively by the network and the terminal equipment and simplify
call accepted control (FF 39).
As we stated supra, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually (i.e., Kobayashi not teaching the limitations of claims 14
and 18) where the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e.,
Buyukkoc teaches the limitations of claims14 and 18, as articulated supra, and the
Examiner relies on Kobayashi for teaching the limitation of “maximum burst size
limit feature for limiting a burst-size request associated with said call” as recited in
claims 27). See Keller, 642 F.2d 425.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning to combine the references
supports the legal conclusion of obviousness (i.e., providing a flow control
performed cooperatively by the network and the terminal equipment and
simplifying call accepted control (FF 39). KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
We also do not agree that the Examiner’s conclusion was based upon
improper hindsight reasoning, because the conclusion is based on the teaching
provided by Kobayashi. See McLaughlin 443 F.2d at 1395.
Since Appellants presented no additional arguments with respect to claims
28 and 29, but rather rely on their dependency from claim 27, they also fall with
claim 27 from which they depend.
11. Rejection of claims 32 and 33-37
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

48
With respect to claims 32 and 33, Buykkoc teaches the service class feature
of constant bit rate (CBR) and variable bit rate service (VBR) (FF 40).
The Examiner did not reject claims 32 and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 but
rather 35 U.S.C. § 103. Thus, the Examiner appropriately utilized the service class
features of constant bit rate (CBR) and variable bit rate service (VBR) (FF 40) as
taught in the “BACKGROUND” section of Buykkoc as service class features of
ATM virtual circuits. In other words, this is a well known feature in the art that
can be utilized with ATM virtual circuits having the features of claims 14, 18, and
31 as disclosed by Buykkoc’s invention and as addressed supra.
With respect to claims 36 and 37, Kilkki teaches the ATM class services of
unspecified bit-rate (UBR) and available bit-rate (ABR) (FF 41) (Ans. 62).
The Examiner’s articulated motivation of providing quality of service class
features defined by ATM standards of UBR and ABR, as taught by Kilkki in the
system of Buyukkoc, would provide the capability to manage increases in network
load, support both real-time and non-real time application, and offer, in certain
circumstances, a guaranteed level service quality (FF 42), using the ATM standard
services to enable the service provider to interoperate between multi-vendor
networks (FF 43).
As we stated supra, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually (i.e., Kilkki not teaching the limitations of claims 14, 18,
and 31) where the rejections are based on combinations of references (i.e.,
Buyukkoc teaches the limitations of claims 14, 18, and 31, as articulated supra,
and the Examiner relies on Kilkki for teaching the limitation of service class
features of constant bit rate (CBR) and variable bit rate service (VBR)). See
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

49
Keller, 642 F.2d 425.
Furthermore, the Examiner’s articulated reasoning to combine the references
supports the legal conclusion of obviousness (i.e., providing capability to manage
increases in network load, supporting both real-time and non-real time application,
and offering, in certain circumstances, a guaranteed level service quality (FF 42),
using the ATM standard services to enable the service provider to interoperate
between multi-vendor networks)). KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Since Appellants presented no additional arguments with respect to claims
34 and 35, but rather rely on their dependency from claim 33, they also fall with
claim 33 from which they depend.

12. Regarding claims 39, 40-43, 45, 50, and 58
Regarding claim 39, we agree with the Examiner’s findings (FF 44-45) and
conclusions of obviousness and adopt them as our own (Ans. 65-68). We reiterate
as above, that the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of Buyukkoc
and Gai and the Examiner appropriately articulated reasoning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; and KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Furthermore as Appellants presented no additional arguments with respect to
claims 40-43, 45, and 50, but rather rely on their dependency from claim 39, they
also fall with claim 39 from which they depend (Br. 95).
Regarding claim 58, Buyukkoc discloses effectuating a treatment call based
on a particular policy feature as stated supra. Buyukkoc further teaches a service
class selection feature for specifying a service class with respect to a network port
used by the party (FF46). Thus, all the limitations of the claim are met.
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

50
13. Regarding claim 44
Regarding claim 44, we agree with the Examiner’s findings (FF 20-23) and
conclusions of obviousness and adopt them as our own (Ans. 69). Our reasoning
follows the line of reasoning presented in section 2 supra. We reiterate, as above,
that the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of Buyukkoc, Gai, and
Noake and the Examiner appropriately articulated reasoning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; and KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
14. Regarding claim 49
Regarding claim 49, we agree with the Examiner’s findings (FF 28-30) and
conclusions of obviousness and adopt them as our own (Ans. 70-72). Our
reasoning follows the line of reasoning presented in section 7 supra. We reiterate,
as above, that the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination of Buyukkoc,
Gai, and Farris and the Examiner appropriately articulated reasoning to support the
legal conclusion of obviousness. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; and KSR, 550 U.S. at
418.
15. Rejection of claims 59, 60-62, 63, and 64
Regarding claims 59, 60, 63, and 64, we agree with the Examiner’s findings
(FF 40-44) and conclusions of obviousness and adopt them as our own (Ans. 73-
77). Our reasoning follows the line of reasoning presented in section 11 supra.
We reiterate, as above, that the Examiner’s rejection is based on the combination
of Buyukkoc, Gai, and Kilkki and the Examiner appropriately articulated reasoning
to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 425; and
KSR, 550 U.S. at 418.
Since Appellants presented no additional arguments with respect to claims
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

51
61 and 62 (Br. 104), but rather rely on their dependency from claim 60, they also
fall with claim 60 from which they depend.
16. Regarding claims 24, 26, 30, 46-48, 54-57, and 65
Regarding the obviousness rejections of claims 24 and 26 over Buyukkoc,
Christie, and Gai (Ans. 14-16 and 58-59), we find that Appellants have not
persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness for these
claims, but merely contended that the additional references fail to cure the
previously-noted deficiencies (Br. 77). Similarly, regarding the obviousness
rejections of claim 30 over Smith (Ans. 17-18 and 60-61), we find that Appellants
have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness for
these claims, but merely contended that the additional references fail to cure the
previously-noted deficiencies (Br. 80). Rregarding the obviousness rejections of
claims 46-48 over Buyukkoc, Gai, and Christie (Ans. 22-23), we find that
Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima facie case of
obviousness for these claims, but merely contended that the additional references
fail to cure the previously-noted deficiencies (Br. 99). Regarding the obviousness
rejections of claims 54-56 over Buyukkoc, Gai, and Kobayashi (Ans. 25-26 and
72), we find that Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s prima
facie case of obviousness for these claims, but merely contended that the additional
references fail to cure the previously-noted deficiencies (Br. 102). Regarding the
obviousness rejections of claims 57 over Buyukkoc, Gai, and Smith (Ans. 26-27
and 72), we find that Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the Examiner’s
prima facie case of obviousness for these claims, but merely contended that the
additional references fail to cure the previously-noted deficiencies (Br. 102).
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

52
Regarding the obviousness rejections of claims 65 over Buyukkoc, Gai, and Basso
(Ans. 24-25 and 77), we find that Appellants have not persuasively rebutted the
Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness for these claims, but merely contended
that the additional references fail to cure the previously-noted deficiencies (Br.
108).
Once the Examiner has satisfied the burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness, the burden then shifts to Appellants to present evidence and/or
arguments that persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case. See Oetiker,
977 F.2d at 1445. Since Appellants did not particularly point out errors in the
Examiner’s reasoning to persuasively rebut the Examiner's prima facie case of
obviousness, the rejections are therefore sustained.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 6-10, 13, 17, 19-30, 32-50, and 54-65.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejections of those claims.

CONCLUSIONS
The Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred by finding the
following:
A. Regarding claims 4 and 17, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred by determining that the Buyukkoc and Noake combination teach
the limitation of “propagating said signaling message to a policy server, said policy
server including at least one policy profile associated with a plurality of policy
features, each policy profile . . . feature of the plurality of policy features is to be
invoked” as recited in claims 1 and 14 and the limitation of “wherein said signaling
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

53
message comprises a Release message” as recited in claims 4 and 17. The
Examiner did articulate a motivation for combining the references which supported
the legal conclusion of obviousness.
B. Regarding claims 6, 8-9, and 19-21, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in reciting as motivation Chistie’s teaching of call validation and
generation of billing records.
C. Regarding claims 23 and 24, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred by finding that Christie teaches the limitation of “a destination
address screening feature for defining a plurality of addresses to which said party
can effectuate said call” and articulating the motivation of call validation and
generation of billing records as taught by Christie.
D. Regarding claim 25, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
by finding that Christie teaches the limitation of “a source address screening
feature for defining a plurality of addresses from which said call can be initiated to
said party” and articulating the motivation of call validation and generation of
billing records as taught by Christie.
D. Regarding claims 7 and 22, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred by finding that Farris teaches the limitations of “maximum call
attempt rate limit” and “maximum call attempt rate limit feature for monitoring the
number of Setup messages received from said party over a predetermined period of
time” and articulating the motivation of providing acceptable/maximum specified
rate of call attempts, as taught by Farris in the system of Buyukkoc, to detect the
predetermined events and/or imminence of predetermined events, and then block
or control those events from their incipiency as taught by Farris.
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

54
E. Regarding claim 10, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
by finding that VanDervort teaches the limitations of “maximum burst size
feature” and articulating the motivation of controlling the flow of traffic and
maximize the utilization of resources, as taught by VanDervort in the system of
Buyukkoc. On the alternative rejection of claim 10 with Horn, Appellants have not
shown that the Examiner erred by finding that Horn teaches the limitations of
“maximum burst size feature” and articulating the motivation of avoiding overflow
problems due to long bursts, as taught by Horn in the system of Buyukkoc.
F. Regarding claims 13 and 38, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred by finding that Basso teaches the limitation of “maximum
concurrent call limit” and articulating the motivation of controlling concurrent
connections/calls to provide efficient protection against signaling congestion is not
conclusory and not based on hindsight.
G. Regarding claims 27-29, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred by finding that Basso teaches the limitation of “maximum burst size limit
feature for limiting a burst-size request associated with said call” and articulating
the motivation of providing flow control performed cooperatively by the network
and the terminal equipment and simplifying call accepted control is not conclusory
and not based on hindsight.
H. Regarding claims 32 and 33-35, Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred by finding that Buyukkoc teaches the service class feature of
constant bit rate (CBR) and variable bit rate service (VBR). Regarding claims 36
and 37, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred by finding that Kilkki
teaches the ATM class services of unspecified bit-rate (UBR) and available bit-rate
Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

55
(ABR). Furthermore, articulating the motivation of providing a capability to
manage increases in network load, supporting both real-time and non-real time
application, and enabling the service provider to interoperate between multi-vendor
networks is not conclusory and not based on hindsight.
I. Regarding claims 39, 40-43, 45, 50, and 58, Appellants have not shown
that the Examiner erred by finding that the combination of Buyukkoc and Gai
teaches all the limitations of claims 39 and 58 and articulating the motivation of
allocating network services and resources by applying high-level quality of service
policies was not conclusory nor based on hindsight.
J. Regarding claim 44, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred
by finding that the combination of Buyukkoc, Gai, and Noake teaches all the
limitations of claims 39, 45 and 49 and that the articulated motivation is not
conclusory nor based on hindsight.
K. Regarding claims 59, 60-62, 63, and 64, Appellants have not shown that
the Examiner erred by finding that Buyukkoc teaches the service class feature of
constant bit rate (CBR) and variable bit rate service (VBR). Appellants have also
not shown that the Examiner erred by finding that Kilkki teaches the ATM class
services of unspecified bit-rate (UBR) and available bit-rate (ABR). Furthermore,
the motivation articulated by the Examiner of providing a capability to manage
increases in network load, supporting both real-time and non-real time application,
and enabling the service provider to interoperate between multi-vendor networks is
not conclusory nor based on hindsight.

Appeal 2008-005119
Application 09/766,943

56
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-50 and 54-65 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

ELD

VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 NORTH COURT HOUSE ROAD
9TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909