Ex Parte Karlsson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 25, 2017

13322952 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 25, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O.Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/322,952 11/29/2011 Marcus Karlsson P27405US1 4447
96750 7590
Patents on Demand, P.A.
4581 Weston Road, Suite 345
Weston, EL 33331
EXAMINER
HAIDER, FAWAAD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2017 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):
docketingl @patentsondemand.com
docketing3 @patentsondemand.com
docketing. eric sson @ thomsonreu ters .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MARCUS KARLS SON
Appeal 2015-004308
Application 13/322,952
Technology Center 3600
Before JAMES A. WORTH, TARA L. HUTCHINGS, and
AMEE A. SHAH, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
The Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’
final decision rejecting claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.,” filed Oct. 9, 2014), Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Feb. 23,
2015), and Specification (“Spec.,” filed Nov. 29, 2011), and to the
Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Jan. 29, 2014) and Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed June 4, 2014).
2 According to the Appellant, the real party in interest is
Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2015-004308
Application 13/322,952
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Appellant’s invention “relate[s] generally to credit-control
systems, and more particularly, to maintaining a charging state during a final
unit redirect for account replenishment in credit-control systems when end
user accounts have been depleted of units.” Spec. 1.
Claims 1, 7, and 13 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below (with
bracketing added for reference):
1. A method implemented in a Credit Control Server CCS,
the method comprising the steps of:
[(a)] receiving, at the CCS from a Credit Control Client
CCC, a message associated with a Multiple Services Credit
Control MSCC session, where the message includes a request for
service units associated with a service account;
[(b)] determining, at the CCS, that insufficient service
units are available in the service account;
[(c)] notifying the CCC that service units need to be added
to the service account by sending as part of an MSCC message a
Final Unit Indication F-U-I redirect message to the CCC; and
[(d)] maintaining, at the CCS, MSCC session related
parameters while the CCC adds service units to the service
account.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).
THE REJECTION
Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Hakala et al., “Diameter Credit-Control Application,'1'’
Standards Track, The Internet Society, 1—114, (August 2005) (hereafter
“Hakala”), Koskinen et al. (WO 2006/136891 Al, pub. Dec. 28. 2006)
2
Appeal 2015-004308
Application 13/322,952
(hereafter “Koskinen”), Cadenas et al. (US 2009/0076952 Al, pub. Mar. 19,
2009, hereafter “Cadenas”), and Bellora et al. (US 2008/0126230 Al, pub.
May 29, 2008) (hereafter “Bellora”).
ANALYSIS
We are persuaded by the Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1,7, and 13 is in error because the cited
prior art does not render obvious limitation (d) of maintaining session
parameters, as recited by claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 7 and 13.
See Appeal Br. 4—11.
The Examiner appears to rely primarily on the combination of Hakala,
Cadenas, and Bellora for teaching this limitation. See Final Act. 2-4. The
Examiner finds that Hakala discloses “maintaining, at the CCS, MSCC
session related parameters while the CCC adds service units to the service
account” {id. at 3) (citing Hakala, Section 5.62.2, page 36),3 but fails to
explicitly disclose parameters {id.), or maintaining MSCC session related
parameters {id. at 4). The Examiner cites to Cadenas for teaching
parameters and to Bellora for maintaining MSCC session related parameters.
Id.
We agree with the Appellant that “Hakala describes the server state
machine entering the Idle state in cases of a F-U-I [Final Unit Indication]
redirect[,] and subsequently, the Idle state includes clearing of the session
and all the variables associated to it. . . . [In other words, the] F-U-I redirect
of Hakala results in entering the idle state where the session variables are
3 We note that although the Examiner cites to page 36, the relied-upon
portion {see Ans. 3 4) is actually on page 35.
3
Appeal 2015-004308
Application 13/322,952
cleared.” Appeal Br. 7. As such, Hakala does not teach maintaining session
related parameters while the CCC adds service units after an F-U-I redirect
message is sent. Although the Examiner directs attention to Hakala at
sections 5.6.2, 8.16, 8.34, 8.35, and 8.37, the Examiner does not adequately
explain how Hakala teaches maintaining session related parameters by
“drop[ping of] all the packets not matching the IP filters” and redirecting the
user. Ans. 3^4; see also Final Act. 5.
We also agree with the Appellant that Bellora does not cure this
deficiency of maintaining MS SC session related parameters after an F-U-I
redirect message. See Appeal Br. 9—10. Even assuming arguendo the
Examiner’s finding that Bellora (and/or Cadeanas) teaches maintaining the
session related parameters (Final Act. 4), the Examiner does not adequately
explain, and it is not clear from the face of the reference, how Bellora
teaches maintaining the parameters after a redirect message, rather than
during the session. See Appeal Br. 10.
Therefore, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in the rejection
of independent claims 1,7, and 13 and do not sustain the rejection of the
independent claims. For the same reasons, we also do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2—6, 8—12, 14, and 15.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—15 is REVERSED.
REVERSED
4