Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2018

14000684 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2018)

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.
14/000,684 08/21/2013 Xiangyang Li LUTZ 201698US01 3173
48116 7590 03/30/2018
FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT
EXAMINER
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor PATEL, PARTHKUMAR
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2018 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):
docketing @ faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte XIANGYANG LI and YIGANG CAI
Appeal 2017-009298
Application 14/000,684
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—3 and 5—15, i.e., all pending claims. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real parties in interest as Alcatel Lucent and
Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-009298
Application 14/000,684
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention “relates to an Internet
protocol multimedia subsystem and in particular to a method and device for
acquiring and using location information in an Internet protocol multimedia
subsystem.” Spec. 1:2-4; see Abstract.2 The Specification explains that
“a mobility management entity acquires trusted user location information
from a base station and provides a home subscriber server with the trusted
location information,” and “preferably billing and charging can be based
upon the trusted user location information,” resulting in better accuracy.
Spec. 2:23—25, 4:15—18; see Abstract.
Exemplary Claims
Independent claims 1 and 3 exemplify the claims at issue and read as
follows:
1. A method, in a mobility management entity of a core
network, for processing location information of a user
equipment, comprising:
acquiring and storing trusted location information of the
user equipment provided by a base station, such that trusted
location information can be adopted for charging mobile voice
data services; and
providing a home subscriber server with the trusted
location information.
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed August 21, 2013; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed July 6, 2016; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
January 30, 2017; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 19, 2017;
and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed June 19, 2017.
2
Appeal 2017-009298
Application 14/000,684
3. A method, in a home subscriber server of a core network
of an internet protocol multimedia subsystem, for processing
location information of a user equipment, comprising:
receiving trusted location information of the user
equipment from a mobility management entity and storing the
trusted location information in a subscriber database, such that
trusted location information can be adopted for charging mobile
voice data services;
receiving from a first network entity related to the trusted
location information a request message for requesting the
trusted location information, wherein the request message
requests the trusted location information of the user equipment
provided by a base station; and
providing the trusted location information to the first
network entity requesting the trusted location information in a
response message, wherein the response message comprises a
cell identity indicating a cell, or a sector identity indicating a
sector, where the user equipment resides.
App. Br. 16—17 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Polychronidis et al.
(“Polychronidis”)
US 2003/0018704 Al Jan. 23, 2003
Cai US 2008/0159499 Al July 3, 2008
Cadenas et al.
(“Cadenas”)
US 2009/0076952 Al Mar. 19, 2009
Horn et al. US 2009/0129327 Al May 21,2009
(“Horn”)
Ophir et al. US 2010/0177780 Al July 15,2010
(“Ophir”)
Wang et al.
(“Wang”)
US 2011/0002292 Al Jan. 6, 2011
3
Appeal 2017-009298
Application 14/000,684
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1,2, and 11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang and Cadenas. Final Act. 5—9.
Claims 3, 6—8, and 12—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wang, Ophir, and Cadenas. Final Act. 9-22.
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wang, Ophir, Cadenas, and Polychronidis. Final Act. 22—23.
Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Wang, Ophir, Cadenas, and Horn. Final Act. 23—25.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Wang, Ophir, Cadenas, and Cai. Final Act. 25—26.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—3 and 5—15 in light of
Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained
below, we disagree with Appellants’ assertions regarding Examiner error.
We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action
(Final Act. 2—26) and Answer (Ans. 2—7). We add the following to address
and emphasize specific findings and arguments.
The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 1—3, 6—8, and 11—15
Trusted Location Information
Adopted for Charging Services
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1, 3, 7, 11, 12, and 14 because “[t]he combination of Wang and
Cadenas does not disclose that trusted location information can be adopted
for charging mobile voice data services as described in the independent
claims.” App. Br. 7, 11—12; see Reply Br. 2—3. In particular, Appellants
4
Appeal 2017-009298
Application 14/000,684
contend that Cadenas: (1) “does not use trusted location information”;
(2) “has a separate charging account depending on the type of service”; and
(3) “is directed to solving a different problem” than the claimed invention.
App. Br. 7—9, 12; see Reply Br. 2—3. Further, Appellants assert that “there is
an important distinction between untrusted and trusted location
information,” and “[t]he specification makes clear that trusted location
information has a distinct interpretation appreciable by one having ordinary
skill.” Reply Br. 2—3.
Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error because
nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the references
individually where a rejection rests on a combination of references. See
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Here, the
Examiner relies on the combination of disclosures in Wang and Cadenas for
teaching or suggesting “that trusted location information can be adopted for
charging mobile voice data services,” as recited in the independent claims.
Ans. 2-4; see Final Act. 5—12, 16—22. The Examiner finds that Wang
discloses a base station providing user-equipment location information to a
mobility-management entity. Final Act. 5, 7, 16; Ans. 2—3. In particular,
Wang teaches that a “Node B [base station] transmits location information of
the UE [user equipment] to an MME [mobility-management entity].” Wang
117, Abstract.
The Specification discloses that “a cell ID provided from the UE [user
equipment] can not be considered trusted.” Spec. 1:25—26. The
Specification further discloses that “[t]he invention provides a method and
corresponding device for using trusted location information of a user
equipment provided from a base station . . . .” Id. at 2:20-21. Because the
5
Appeal 2017-009298
Application 14/000,684
base station in Wang provides user-equipment location information to a
mobility-management entity, Wang teaches or suggests “trusted location
information” according to the independent claims. See, e.g., Final Act. 16.
Further, the Examiner finds that Cadenas teaches using trusted
location information for billing or charging mobile voice data services.
Final Act. 2—3, 5—6, 8—9, 11—12, 14—15, 18, 21; Ans. 3, 5. For example,
Cadenas describes networks for wireless devices that provide mobile voice
data services and communicate with an Internet protocol multimedia
subsystem (“IMS”) network. Cadenas Tflf 21—27, Fig. 1 (network 104,
network 106, and IMS network 108). The IMS network authenticates
communications and provides trusted information to IMS components. Id.
26-21. Cadenas also describes establishing different “charging accounts”
for different services used by a wireless device and billing for those services
based on, among other things, the device’s location. Id. H 7, 26, 33, 43 46,
58, Abstract. Hence, Cadenas teaches or suggests location-based billing and
charging.
Consequently, the combination of disclosures in Wang and Cadenas
teaches or suggests “that trusted location information can be adopted for
charging mobile voice data services,” as recited in the independent claims.
Ans. 2—5; see Final Act. 2—3, 5—12, 14—22.
Appellants’ contention that Cadenas “has a separate charging account
depending on the type of service” does not distinguish the independent
claims from Cadenas. See App. Br. 7—9, 12; Reply Br. 3. Each claim uses
the transitional term “comprising” and, therefore, “does not exclude
unrecited elements,” such as different charging accounts for different
6
Appeal 2017-009298
Application 14/000,684
services. See Regeneron Pharm., Inc. v. Menus N. V, 864 F.3d 1343, 1352
(Fed. Cir. 2017) (citing Manual of Patent Examining Procedure § 2111.03).
Appellants’ contention that Cadenas “is directed to solving a different
problem” than the claimed invention does not persuade us of Examiner
error. See App. Br. 7—8. Like the claimed invention, Cadenas concerns
“acquiring and using location information in an Internet protocol multimedia
subsystem” for billing or charging purposes. See, e.g., Cadenas H 1, 7,
24—27, 33, 43—46, 58, Fig. 1; see also Spec. 1:3—4, 4:15—18. For instance,
Cadenas “relates to the field of wireless communications, and more
particularly relates to charging multiple accounts associated with a wireless
device for service usage.” Cadenas 11.
Summary for Independent Claims 1,3,7,11,12, and 14
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 3, 7,
11, 12, and 14 for obviousness. Hence, we sustain the § 103(a) rejections of
these independent claims.
Dependent Claims 2, 6, 8,13, and 15
Claims 2, 6, 8,13, and 15 depend from an independent claim discussed
above. Appellants do not argue patentability separately for these dependent
claims. App. Br. 7—12; Reply Br. 2—3. Because Appellants do not argue the
claims separately, we sustain the § 103(a) rejections of these dependent
claims for the same reasons as the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
The § 103(a) Rejections of Claims 5, 9, and 10
Claim 5 depends from claim 3, while claims 9 and 10 depend from
claim 7. For these dependent claims, Appellants assert that: (1) “Cadenas
7
Appeal 2017-009298
Application 14/000,684
does not disclose the trusted location information and that the trusted
location information can be adopted for charging mobile voice data
services”; and (2) “[f]urther reliance on” Polychronidis, Horn, or Cai
“does not resolve these missing elements.” App. Br. 12—14; see Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ assertions do not amount to separate patentability arguments.
See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (explaining that the
applicable rules “require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than
a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the
corresponding elements were not found in the prior art”). Thus, we sustain
the § 103(a) rejections of these dependent claims for the same reasons as the
independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—3 and 5—15.
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). See
37 C.F.R. §41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8