Ex Parte KhasnabishDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 11, 201612336608 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/336,608 12/17/2008 25537 7590 05/13/2016 VERIZON PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Bhumip Khasnabish 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. 20080363 2225 EXAMINER FOUD, HICHAM B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/13/2016 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): patents@verizon.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BHUMIP KHASNABISH Appeal 2014-008301 1 Application 12/336,608 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI and SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges. HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Verizon Communications Inc. App. Br. 1. Appeal2014-008301 Application 12/336,608 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-23. Reply Br. 1. Claims 7 and 14 have been canceled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We reverse. Appellant's Invention Appellant's invention is directed to a method and system for allowing a registered user to utilize a variety of user devices ( 101, 103, 105, 107) during a communication session to access information and services at a remote provider via a network core (127). Spec. i-f 14, Fig. 1. In particular, the network core (127) stores a user profile (311) including user authentication information, and a device service profile specifies a certain time period the user devices can be used such that the user can access the services according to control service settings specified by the user. Id. at i-fi-1 19-20. Representative Claim Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: initiating a communication session between a user device and a target device for utilizing a network communication service via the target device or in communicating with the target device, wherein the communication session is initiated via a core network; utilizing, by the user device, the network communication service via the 2 Appeal2014-008301 Application 12/336,608 communication session, wherein the communication session is controlled based on one or more user profiles reflecting one or more service protocols of the user device, service protocols of the network communication service and one or more attributes for the communication session, wherein the one or more user profiles are stored in the core network remote from any user device; and adapting transmission signaling of the communication session to be compatible with at least one of the service protocols of the user device and with the service protocols of the network communication service, and to facilitate the communication session and the utilization by the user device of the network communication service, wherein the core network is not ad-hoc network, and wherein the stored one or more user profiles include a registered user, each user device of the registered user that can be used during the communication session regardless of whether or not said each user device of the registered user is currently participating in the communication session, and the desired service control settings for the registered user and for said each user device of the registered user that can be used during the communication session including a device service profile specifying a certain time period that said each user device can be used. Zhao Rodriguez Du Prior Art Relied Upon US 2004/0143669 Al US 7,120,922 B2 US 2007/0010231 Al 3 Jul. 22, 2004 Oct. 10, 2006 Jan. 11, 2007 Appeal2014-008301 Application 12/336,608 Mac Innis US 8,331,294 B2 Rejections on Appeal Dec. 11, 2012 The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-12, 15, 18, 19, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofMacinnis and Rodriguez. Claims 2, 4, 13, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofMacinnis, Rodriguez, and Zhao. Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Maclnnis, Rodriguez, and Du. ANALYSIS We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim as they are presented in ... • .. ~ • " / -1 -1 .. ... T""ll. .. ~ • " " /,.., me Appeal tiner, pages 0---11, ana me Kep1y tiner, pages L---O. ~ Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Maclnnis and Rodriguez teaches or suggests storing a user profile in the core network remote from any user device, as recited in independent claim 1? 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 3, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed July 23, 2014), and the Answer (mailed June 4, 2014) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37( c )(1 )(vii). 4 Appeal2014-008301 Application 12/336,608 Appellant argues the combination of Macinnis and Rodriguez does not teach or suggest the disputed limitation emphasized above. App. Br. 6- 11; Reply Br. 2-6. In particular, Appellant argues although Mcinnis discloses that the handheld wireless communication device (HWCD) stores information corresponding to the user profiles, the HWCD does not teach a core network. App. Br. 9 (citing Macinnis 9:26-33.) That is, Macinnis discloses storing the user profiles on a user device (HWCD), as opposed to in a remote core network, as in the disputed limitation. Id. This argument is persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Macinnis discloses that the HWCD may be used as a router in an ad hoc network including a WLAN, a base station, and an access point, such that the HWCD stores locally available resources along with the types of networks a user may access. Ans. 9, 10 (citing ivicinnis 9:18-24, 31-36, 62---65, 10:30-37, 46, 57-58). However, we do not agree with the Examiner that Macinnis' disclosure of the HWCD performing transcoding functions as part of the ad hoc network somehow teaches the core network. Id. In fact, Macinnis indicates that the transcoding functions are performed locally. (Mclnnis 10:57-58.) Further, even if such functions were performed on the ad hoc network, it would vitiate the claim language, which explicitly precludes the core network from being an ad hoc network. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that Macinnis' disclosure of storing user profiles on a user device falls short of teaching storing such data in the remote core network. Because Appellant has shown at least one reversible in the Examiner's rejection, we need not 5 Appeal2014-008301 Application 12/336,608 reach Appellant's remaining arguments. We therefore do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2---6, 8-13, and 15-23, which also recite the disputed limitations. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-23, as set forth above. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation