Ex Parte Hearty et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 15, 201611535882 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111535,882 0912712006 83579 7590 08/17/2016 LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC Attn: Patent Docketing 1025 Eldorado Blvd. Broomfield, CO 80021 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR John Hearty UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE United States Patent and Trademark Office Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS P.O. Box 1450 Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450 www .uspto.gov ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 0080-US-Ol 8223 EXAMINER ANSARI, NAJEEBUDDIN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/17/2016 ELECTRONIC Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding. The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): patent.docketing@level3.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) ~UNITED STATES PATENT AND TR~ADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JOHN HEARTY, MUD AS SIR F AJANDAR, RONALD MATTHEW MuNOZ, and DANIEL RYAN Appeal2015-001786 Application 11/535,882 Technology Center 2400 Before KEVIN C. TROCK, ADAM J. PYONIN, and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants' disclosure includes embodiments directed to the "determination of potential relocation of a Voice over IP (VoIP) - enabled Appeal2015-001786 Application 11/535,882 device based on Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) registration state." Spec. i-f 2. Claims 1, 8, and 12 are independent. Claim 12 is reproduced below for reference (with emphases added): 12. A non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions, which, when executed, cause a computer to implement a process, the process comprising: by an online service provider that provides billing services for use of a Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP)-enabled device, subscribing to a registrar of a VoIP network associated with the VoIP-enabled device before said device has been activated for an initial time, the registrar configured to monitor activity of the VoIP-enabled device over the VoIP network and provide state information of the VoIP-enabled device to the online service provider; receiving a first message at the online service provider from the registrar indicating that the VoIP-enabled device has entered an active state; based on the first message indicating that the VoIP- enabled device has entered the active state, beginning a billing process to bill the customer for use of the VoIP-enabled device; receiving one or more other messages at the online service provider from the registrar indicating that the VoIP-enabled device has re-entered the active state from a terminated state; and based on the message indicating that the VoIP-enabled device has re-entered the active state from the terminated state, determining that the VoIP-enabled device has potentially relocated. References and Re} ections Claims 1-13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiss (US 2007/0010275 Al; Jan. 11, 2007) and Moore (US 2003/0193961 Al; Oct. 16, 2003). Final Act. 3. 2 Appeal2015-001786 Application 11/535,882 Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kiss, Moore, and Mehio (US 2007 /0173223 Al; July 26, 2007). Final Act. 21. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments, and we adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. A. Potential Relocation Based On State Change Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, because the cited portions of Kiss do not teach determining that the IP-enabled telephony device has potentially relocated, based on one or more registration state changes, as claimed. Instead, these portions of Kiss discuss a session initiation protocol event package for registration that includes three states, namely the initial state, the active state, and the terminated state. There is no discussion in these portions of using one or more registration state changes to determine that the IP-enabled telephony device has potentially relocated. Furthermore, Appellant notes that the terms "relocate" and "relocation" do not appear in Kiss. App. Br. 5---6. Appellants present substantively similar arguments regarding the commensurate limitations recited by independent claims 8 and 12. See App. Br. 6-7, 8. We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The exact terms "relocate" and "relocation" need not be recited explicitly in Kiss in order to be taught or suggested. 1 See, e.g., Kiss i-f 93 ("provide location updates"). Further, 1 Cf In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 3 Appeal2015-001786 Application 11/535,882 although Appellants have provided a general description of Kiss along with a restatement of the claim limitations (see App. Br. 5---6), Appellants' arguments fail to compare and contrast the claim limitations with the Examiner's specific findings to show error therein. See Final Act. 3-7 (citing Kiss i-fi-134, 35, 38, 91, 92); see also Ans. 3-5. Therefore, Appellants do not persuade us of error in the Examiner's determination that the claim 1 limitation "based on one or more registration state changes, determining that the IP-enabled telephony device has potentially relocated" is obvious in view of Kiss, which "teach[ es] the registration remains in an active state and transitions to a terminated state 205 and can further be mapped to presence information." Final Act. 26 (citing Kiss i-fi-134, 35). Nor do Appellants challenge the Examiner's additional finding that "Kiss teaches when a mobile station roams between a home and a visiting network (other radio network) the presence information changes reflecting such relocation of the mobile station," as "the registration state must change when a user is relocated to another radio network in the prior art of Kiss." Ans. 4 (citing Kiss i-fi-190, 93, 95). Accordingly, Appellants do not persuade us Kiss fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations recited by claim 1, and the similar limitations recited by independent claims 8 and 12. See Ans. 3-7. B. Indication the Device Re-Entered the Active State from a Terminated State Appellants also argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 12 because, Kiss does not teach ["]receiving one or more other messages at the online service provider from the registrar indicating that the 4 Appeal2015-001786 Application 11/535,882 VoIP-enabled device has re-entered the active state from a terminated state[" as claimed]. Instead, these [cited] portions of Kiss disclose a refresh causes the active state to move to the active state, in other words remain in the active state, as shown in Figure 2. There is nothing in Figure 2 indicated a re-entered the active state from a terminated state. Also, there is nothing in paragraph [0035] that discusses a device having re-entered the active state from a terminated state. App. Br. 7-8. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. See Ans. 8; Final Act. 16. Kiss discloses device account states can change and notifications are sent when an account is registered; thus we agree with the Examiner that the reference teaches or suggests sending a notification for a registration (i.e., active state) that follows a lapse in registration (i.e., terminated state). 2 See Final Act. 16; see also Kiss i-f 35 ("[a] notification is generated to the subscribers when any event occurs in either the address-of record or per- contact state machines. The events of interest include registered, refreshed, expired, unregistered and rejected'} Further, Appellants do not challenge the additional support provided by the Examiner in the Answer: that the disputed limitation encompasses Kiss' s teaching of roaming amongst different networks because "the registration state must change"-between terminated and active-upon exiting and entering the networks. Ans. 8 (citing Kiss i-fi-1 90, 95). 2 See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) ("[I]n considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom."). 5 Appeal2015-001786 Application 11/535,882 Therefore, Appellants do not persuade us Kiss fails to teach or suggest "receiving one or more other messages at the online service provider from the registrar indicating that the VoIP-enabled device has re-entered the active state from a terminated state" as recited by claim 12. CONCLUSION We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 12. Appellants advance no further substantive arguments on dependent claims 2-7, 9-11, and 13-15. See App. Br. 8-9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of these claims for the same reasons discussed above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011). DECISION The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-15 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)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation