Ex Parte Kulkarni et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 23, 2014

11274992 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2014)

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.
11/274,992 11/16/2005 Narayan A. Kulkarni LUC-590/Kulkarni 2-110 7531
47382 7590 06/23/2014
Carmen Patti Law Group, LLC
One N. LaSalle Street
44th Floor
Chicago, IL 60602
EXAMINER
SABOURI, MAZDA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte NARAYAN A. KULKARNI
and BAOLING S. SHEEN
____________________

Appeal 2011-010120
Application 11/274,992
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-010120
Application 11/274,992
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

The claims are directed generally to telecommunication networks, and
more particularly to a telecommunications network that supports a
mechanism for estimating the number of subscribers that are eligible to
receive service in the mobility system for capacity planning and resource
engineering. (Spec. [01]). Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of
the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus, comprising:

a telecommunications network having a plurality of
mobile switching centers each of the mobile·switching centers
having a respective visitor location register (VLR);

a selected at least one mobile switching center of the
plurality of mobile switching centers;

periodic time intervals; and

a respective set of recordings of a number of current
entries consisting of service allowed roaming mobile terminals
in the respective visitor location registers of the selected at least
one mobile switching center existing at an end of each of the
time intervals where service allowed roaming mobile terminals
consist of roaming mobile terminals that have a non-expired
VLR record that is at least one of a VLR record that passed an
authentication check and a call time VLR record created
through mobile call activities instead of autonomous
registration.

Appeal 2011-010120
Application 11/274,992
3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Chiou US 2006/0069609 A1 Mar. 30, 2006
Naqvi US 6,850,763 B1 Feb. l, 2005
Marth 5,713,072 Jan. 27, 1998

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chiou in view of Naqvi.
Claims 17-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chiou in view of Naqvi in view of Marth.

ANALYSIS
Appellants present arguments to each of the independent and
dependent claims, but the arguments to independent claims 1 and 17 and
their corresponding dependent claims generally are the same arguments.
With respect to the dependent claims, Appellants generally rely upon the
arguments advanced with respect to the corresponding independent claims
with little additional arguments beyond repeating the language of the claim
and presenting general arguments for patentability. We find Appellants’
general arguments for patentability to be unpersuasive of error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.

Appeal 2011-010120
Application 11/274,992
4
While the correlation of the Examiner's responses is not presented in a
one to one correspondence, the Examiner generally provides a response to
each of Appellants' proffered distinctions. We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions as our own. Appellants have not filed a Reply Brief to
respond to the Examiner's clarifications in the responsive arguments.

Appellants’ main contention with respect to independent claim 1 is
with respect to the teachings of the Chiou reference with the discussion of
mobile stations moving into a cell from different locations which Appellants
contend differs from the claimed mobile stations moving from cell to cell
with the VLR updates of a roaming mobile terminal. Appellants maintain
they can only guess that the Examiner is asserting that the VLR coverage
maps one-to-one with location area and that the location area is equivalent to
a roaming area. (App. Br. 6-7). But Appellants argue that the Chiou
reference does not disclose a VLR associated with a location area. (App. Br.
7). Appellants contend that the Chiou reference does not disclose that
moving from location area to location area equates to roaming or that the
location area is equivalent to a roaming area. (App. Br. 7). We note that
throughout Appellants’ arguments, Appellants have not identified any
express definition for any of the claim terminology. Therefore, we find the
Examiner may interpret the claim language with a broad but reasonable
interpretation. Additionally, Appellants contend that claim 1 requires a VLR
record that passed an authentication check.
Appellants contend that the term “subscriber” as identified by the
Examiner reads on some level of authentication is in error. Appellants
contend that the Chiou reference nowhere describes nor has the Examiner
Appeal 2011-010120
Application 11/274,992
5
pointed to anywhere where the Chiou reference describes the term
subscriber as a mobile terminal that has passed an authentication. (App. Br.
7). The Examiner maintains that it is implicit from the teachings that the
terminal identifies itself in some manner such that the network can't confirm
that this terminal does in fact have a subscription and that it is a reasonable
interpretation of "passing an authentication check." (Ans. 11-12). We agree
with the Examiner and find Appellants have not identified an express
definition of the "authentication" or included any details thereto to
differentiate from the Examiner’s broad interpretation. We additionally note
Appellants' Specification states "normal VLRs that passed the authentication
checks (subscriber profiles are returned from HLR successfully) . . . ."
(Spec. [33]). Therefore, we do not find the Examiner's interpretation of
subscribers and authentication to be unreasonable.
Additionally, Appellants contend that a "subscriber" is a person who
has a telephone service provided by a phone company, but Appellants do not
provide a relevant date for this definition. (We assume it is in the 2000-2001
range for the edition relied upon). (App. Br. 7). Appellants appear to
attempt to apply case law citations regarding plain meaning of claim
language to also extend to interpreting prior art language in view of its plain
and ordinary meaning. While we agree that the prior art should be
interpreted in view of its ordinary meaning, one dictionary definition for the
ordinary meaning does not necessarily control. The Examiner has identified
how the Examiner understands the skilled artisans would interpret the term
“subscriber” and identified that there is some type of authentication implicit
in the use of a communication device with a communication service. We
Appeal 2011-010120
Application 11/274,992
6
find the Examiner’s reasoning to be sound. We find Appellants' proffered
definition does not show error in the Examiner's line of reasoning.
Appellants extend the Examiner's reliance upon the “subscriber” in
the Chiou reference regarding when a phone is not on or beyond its allotted
time. (App. Br. 8). We find Appellants' speculation to go beyond the
express language of independent claim 1 and do not show error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
With respect to Appellants' contention that the claimed limitation of a
count of the VLR records that passed an authentication check is not
disclosed by the cited prior art (App. Br. 8), the Examiner maintains:
the claim does not establish that the claimed number has to
represent of ALL the roaming terminals served by a VLR at a
given time. Therefor even the Sum of Mobility for a single cell
would read on a number of entries in a VLR for roaming
mobile terminals. However, it is understood that the Sum of
Mobility in Chiou is calculated for all cells in all location areas
served by all VLRs in a given network (statistics collected for
different parts of entire network, see paragraphs 23, 24).
Therefor the system/method of Chiou would in fact account for
all the roaming subscribers in all of the cells and location areas
served by a given VLR.

(Ans. 11). We agree with the Examiner. The Examiner maintains that the
Chiou reference establishes that the terminals belong to "subscribers" who
have to periodically registered and connected with the system, and it is
implicit from this teaching that the terminal identifies itself in some manner
such that the network can confirm that this terminal does in fact have a
subscription. (Ans. 11). Again, we agree with the Examiner.

With respect to Appellants' argument that the Examiner has not
addressed the “claim 1 limitation of a mobile terminal with a VLR record
Appeal 2011-010120
Application 11/274,992
7
created through mobile call time activities instead of autonomous
registration” (App. Br. 10), we note that the language of independent claim 1
is drafted in the alternative "VLR record that is at least one of a VLR record
that passed an authentication check and a call time VLR record created
through mobile call activities instead of autonomous registration." Claim 1
(emphasis added). We find the Examiner has addressed the authentication
check which meets the claimed "at least one of" limitation. (Ans. 12).
Therefore, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness, and we sustain the rejection of representative independent
claim 1 and its respective dependent claims.
With respect to dependent claim 2, Appellants rely upon the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1. (App. Br. 10).
Therefore, we group claim 2 with independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claim 3, Appellants repeat arguments
advanced with respect to claim 1 and repeat the language of claim 3. Since
we found Appellants' arguments unpersuasive with respect to claim 1, we
similarly find them unpersuasive for claim 3.
With respect to dependent claim 4, Appellants repeat the language of
claim 4, the portions of the reference and maintain that there is no teaching
of "authentication". Since we found Appellants' argument unpersuasive with
respect to claim 1, we find this same argument unpersuasive with respect to
claim 4. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 4. With respect to
claims 5-8, Appellants rely upon the arguments advanced with respect to
claim 1. Therefore, we group these claims as falling with representative
claim 1.
Appeal 2011-010120
Application 11/274,992
8
With respect to independent claim 9, Appellants repeat the language
of the claim and maintain that the portions of the references relied upon by
the Examiner do not mention the terminology of the claimed invention.
(App. Br. 16-17). Again, we find Appellants' argument does not address the
merits of the combination as applied by the Examiner. Therefore we find
Appellants argument unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness of representative independent claim 9.
With respect to claims 10-16, Appellants rely upon the arguments
advanced with respect to claims 9, 1, and 3 which we found on persuasive of
error. (App. Br. 18 -20). Therefore, we group claims 10-16 with
representative claim 9.
With respect to representative independent claim 17, Appellants
repeat the language of claim 17 and present arguments similar to those
advanced with respect to claim 1. Appellants further contend that "claim 17
contains the limitation of a count that excludes no service VLR record."
(App. Br. 21). We note that the Examiner relied upon the Marth reference
for this limitation. (Ans. 9). Appellants contend that the Marth reference is
silent and speculate as to alternatives. (App. Br. 22-23). We find
Appellants' speculation does not show error in the Examiner's inclusion of
obviousness.
With respect to dependent claims 18-24, Appellants rely upon the
arguments advanced with respect to independent claims 1 and 17 (App. Br.
23-25), which we found unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion
of obviousness. Therefore, we group these claims with representative claim
17

Appeal 2011-010120
Application 11/274,992
9
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-24 based upon
obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-24 are
sustained.

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