Ex Parte Ludwig et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2017

13262423 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 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.
4015-7807/P27494-US1 5774
EXAMINER
HALL, TEISHA DANEA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/262,423 02/10/2012
24112 7590 10/31/2017
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
Reiner Ludwig
10/31/2017 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 REINER LUDWIG and HANNES EKSTROM
Appeal 2017-001528
Application 13/262,4231
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 27, 28, 30-34, 36, and 37, which constitute all the claims pending in
this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 The real party in interest identified by Appellants is Telefonaktiebolaget L
M Ericsson (publ). App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-001528
Application 13/262,423
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
Appellants’ disclosed invention relates to “handling network traffic”
(Spec. 1:9), and more particularly to “direct[ing] network traffic related to a
specific service to a bearer offering a certain quality of service (QoS)”
(Spec. 1:13—14). Claim 27, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
27. A method of handling network traffic, comprising:
receiving incoming data packets of a specific service
from one of a plurality of bearers, the data packets
including a first identifier indicating a source and a
destination;
detecting outgoing data packets of said specific service
that each include a complementary second
identifier indicating the source of the first
identifier as a destination of the outgoing data
packet;
responsive to detecting a new packet flow in said
received incoming data packets, automatically
generating a packet filter configured to route the
detected outgoing data packets having said
complementary second identifier to the same
bearer from which the incoming data packets
having said first identifier are received; and
routing the detected outgoing data packets having said
complementary second identifier in accordance
with the automatically generated packet filter;
wherein at least one of said detecting and said routing of
the outgoing data packets is selectively activated
on the basis of a control signal.
2
Appeal 2017-001528
Application 13/262,423
The Rejections2
Claims 27, 28, 30, 32—34, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a)3 as being unpatentable over Dolganow et al. (US 2009/0238192
Al; Sept. 24, 2009; hereinafter “Dolganow”) and Ulupinar et al. (US
2010/0103862 Al; Apr. 29, 2010; hereinafter “Ulupinar”). See Final Act. 4—
7.
Claims 31 and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Dolganow, Ulupinar, and Yegani et al. (US 2008/0002592
Al; Jan. 3, 2008; hereinafter “Yegani”). See Final Act. 7—8.
The Record
Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App.
Br.” filed Feb. 9, 2016; “Reply Br.” filed Nov. 7, 2016) and the
Specification (“Spec.” filed Sept. 30, 2011) for the positions of Appellants
and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed July 30, 2015) and Answer
(“Ans.” mailed Sept. 20, 2016) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions
of the Examiner.
2 Claims 31 and 37 are included in the heading for the rejection over
Dolganow and Ulupinar (Final Act. 4) but no detailed explanations of the
rejection of claims 31 and 37 are provided under this heading (see id. at 4—
7). Claim 27 is included in, and claim 31 is omitted from, the heading for
the rejection over Dolganow, Ulupinar, and Yegani {id. at 7), but a detailed
explanation of the rejection of claim 31, instead of claim 27, is provided
under this heading {id. at 8). We treat these irregularities as typographical or
clerical errors.
3 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the
effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Final Act 2.
3
Appeal 2017-001528
Application 13/262,423
ISSUE
The dispositive issue presented by Appellants’ arguments is as
follows:4 Does the Examiner err in finding the combination of Dolganow
and Ulupinar teaches or suggests “responsive to detecting a new packet flow
in said received incoming data packets, automatically generating a packet
filter configured to route the detected outgoing data packets having said
complementary second identifier to the same bearer from which the
incoming data packets having said first identifier are received” (emphasis
added), as recited in claim 27?
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 27, the Examiner relies on Dolganow to teach
“[receiving incoming data packets of a specific service” and “[detecting
outgoing packets of a specific service.” Ans. 3 (citing Dolganow H 47-48).
The Examiner relies on Ulupinar to teach “[mjapping identifiers for specific
flows to a bearer,” and “[ujsing the same bearer (channel) to transmit
outgoing data packets that was used to receive incoming data packets.” Id.
(citing Ulupinar H 50, 58). The Examiner explains that the broadest
reasonable interpretation of “a packet filter configured to route the detected
outgoing data packets” (claim 27) encompasses a routing table/bearer
mapping table as taught by Ulupinar. Id. (citing Ulupinar 150). The
Examiner maps the recited “automatically generating [the] packet filter” to
4 Appellants’ arguments present additional issues. Because the identified
issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues.
4
Appeal 2017-001528
Application 13/262,423
Ulupinar’s “ability to store the TEID[5] to bearer ID association.” Id.
(citing Ulupinar 149). The Examiner explains “[t]he establishment of the
routing table/bearer mapping table (filter) [in Ulupinar] is done in response
to the user equipment determining that it has packets that need to be sent
(responsive to detecting a new packet flow). Ans. 3^4 (emphasis added).
Appellants contend as follows:
[Ulupinar’s] putative “filter” cited by the Patent Office is
generated before activation of the dedicated bearer has
completed. A bearer that is not yet activated is not carrying any
packet flows. Indeed, Ulupinar is clear that the bearer setup
response at the end of the dedicated bearer activation process is
what “facilitate[s] subsequent communications to the UE 110
dedicated bearer by routing packets using the routing tables A
10050 (emphasis added). Because the putative “filter” (i.e., the
routing table storing an association between the identifier and the
dedicated radio bearer) cited by the Patent Office is generated
before “subsequent communications to the UE 110 dedicated
bearer by routing packets using the routing tables,” (Id.) such a
feature of Ulupinar does not teach or suggest “responsive to
detectins a new packet flow in said received incomins data
packets, automatically seneratins a packet fdter configured to
route... to the same bearer from which the incomins data packets
... are received A as required by claim 27.
App. Br. 7.
We agree with Appellants. It is well established that “[a]ll words in a
claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against
the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). Even
accepting all of the Examiner’s explanations arguendo, they do not take into
account all of the words of the claim. In particular, the Examiner explains
that Ulupinar’s mapping table entry (i.e., the recited “filter”) is generated “in
5 Tunnel end point identifier. Ulupinar 117.
5
Appeal 2017-001528
Application 13/262,423
response to the user equipment determining that it has packets that need to
be sent.” Ans. 4 (emphasis added). However, claim 27 recites that the filter
is generated “responsive to detecting a new packet flow in said received
incoming data packets(emphasis added.) And an earlier step in claim 27
recites “receiving incoming data packets of a specific service from one of a
plurality of bearers,” thus confirming that “said received incoming data
packets” must be previously received from a bearer. We find the Examiner
errs by equating (A) detecting that outgoing packets need to be sent (as the
Examiner finds) with (B) detecting a new packet flow in received incoming
data packets (as the claims require), thereby failing to adequately consider
all of the words of the claim.
Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claim 27. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
(1) independent claim 27; (2) independent claim 32, which includes a
substantially similar limitation (compare App. Br. (Claims App’x) 14, with
id. at 13) and was rejected on substantially the same basis (compare Final
Act. 6—7, with id. at 4—5); and (3) claims 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 37,
which variously depend from claims 27 and 32, see In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (“Dependent claims are nonobvious under
section 103 if the independent claims from which they depend are
nonobvious.”).
6
Appeal 2017-001528
Application 13/262,423
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 27, 28, 30-34, 36, and
37 is reversed.
REVERSED
7