Ex Parte Lewis et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Mar 9, 2012

10299284 (B.P.A.I. Mar. 9, 2012)

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.
10/299,284 11/18/2002 John Ervin Lewis C01-0057-000; ATT-176 4919
65667 7590 03/09/2012
AT&T Legal Department - Moazzam
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-207
One AT&T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
RAMPURIA, SHARAD K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/09/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte JOHN ERVIN LEWIS, DANH TAN LAI,
JUSTIN McNAMARA, and KARL J. SCHLIEBER
_____________

Appeal 2009-013849
Application 10/299,284
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and CARL W.
WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013849
Application 10/299,284

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 32 through 53 and 55 through 59.
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed a system for storage of messages in a
telecommunications network. See pages 5, 13, and Figure 1 of Appellants’
Specification. Claim 32 is representative of the invention and reproduced
below:
32. A wireless messaging infrastructure system, comprising:
at least one message routing entity coupled to a plurality of
network elements via a network transport bus, wherein the plurality of
network elements operates under a plurality of different message
protocols; and
at least two message storage devices coupled to the at least one
message routing entity for storing wireless messages, wherein a first
message storage device stores messages that are associated with a first
network element and wherein a second message storage device stores
messages that are associated with a second network element,
wherein the plurality of network elements delivers wireless
messages to the network transport bus, and
wherein the at least one message routing entity obtains wireless
messages from the network transport bus and routes at least a portion
of the received wireless messages to an appropriate one of the at least
two message storage devices.

REFERNCES

Baudoin US 5,406,557 Apr. 11, 1995
Bennett US 20020112014 Aug. 15, 2002
Skog US 6,947,738 B2 Sep. 20, 2005
Segur EP 0854655 A2 Jul. 22, 1998

Appeal 2009-013849
Application 10/299,284

3

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 32, 34 through 49, 51, 53, and 55
through 59 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Segur in
view of Skog. Answer 4-10.
1

The Examiner has rejected claims 33 and 52 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Segur in view of Skog and Baudoin. Answer
10-11.
The Examiner has rejected claim 50 as being unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Segur in view of Skog and Bennett. Answer 12.

ISSUE
Rejection of claims 32, 34 through 49, 51, 53, and 55 through 59
Appellants argue on pages 4 through 7 of the Brief
2
that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims is in error because Skog is not prior art to the
invention. Specifically, Appellants argue the teachings the Examiner relies
upon in the rejection are not disclosed in the provisional application from
which Skog derives priority.
Appellants’ arguments present us with the issue did the Examiner err
in finding that Skog’s provisional patent application (60/332,376) teaches
multiple storage devices within a wireless messaging infrastructure as
recited in representative claim 32?

1
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
February 6, 2008.
2
Throughout this opinion we refer to Appellants’ Brief dated December 20,
2007 and Reply Brief dated April 3, 2008.
Appeal 2009-013849
Application 10/299,284

4

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 32, 34 through 49, 51, 53, and 55 through 59
Appellants argue Skog teaches pushing MMS messages between two
or more wireless systems to a receiving device and does not teach storing
any wireless messages on two storage devices within a wireless messaging
system. Brief 5-6. Appellants argue “[a]t most the Skog provisional patent
application discloses two storage devices on different wireless systems.”
Brief 6. The Examiner finds Skog’s provisional application discloses “two
MMS servers (step 3 [discussed on page 3]), which store and forward the
MMS message in the wireless messaging system.” Answer 13. We concur
with the Examiner’s findings.
Further, the Examiner finds that the features which the Appellants’
arguments rely upon are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Answer 13-14.
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants’ arguments are not
commensurate with the scope of claim 32 which recites “[a] wireless
messaging infrastructure system comprising ... at least two storage devices.”
Thus, representative claim 32 requires the storage devices to be in the “same
messaging infrastructure system” and not “a wireless network” as argued by
Appellants on pages 5 and 6 of the Brief. That is, we do not see the term
“wireless infrastructure” to be limited to only a (one) wireless network as
implied by Appellants’ arguments. As such, even though Figure 1 of Skog’s
provisional application depicts two public land mobile networks (PLMN-X
and PLMN-Y) each with an MMS server, we see no error in the finding the
entire system depicted in Figure 1 is a wireless messaging infrastructure.
Appellants’ arguments on page 2 of the Reply Brief, that the MMS
servers do not store messages, were not timely presented and are considered
Appeal 2009-013849
Application 10/299,284

5

waived. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74 (BPAI 2010)
(“informative”)
3
(absent a showing of good cause, the Board is not required
to address arguments in the Reply Brief that could have been presented in
the principal Brief). Further, Skog identifies that the MMS servers receive a
message from a mobile phone and forward the message to another mobile
phone. The skilled artisan would recognize that the act transmitting data
typically involves storage (i.e., buffering) of the data. Thus, Appellants’
arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 32. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 32, 34
through 49, 51, 53, and 55 through 59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Rejections of claims 33, 50, and 52
As, Appellants’ arguments on page 6 and 7 of the Brief with respect to
the rejections of these claims present us with the same issues as discussed
with respect to claim 32. Accordingly, we sustain the examiner’s rejections
of claims 33, 50, and 52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

3
The “informative” status of this opinion is noted at the following Board
website: http://www.uspto.gov/ip/boards/bpai/decisions/inform/index.jsp.
Appeal 2009-013849
Application 10/299,284

6

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 32 through 53 and 55
through 59 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