Ex Parte Redell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 30, 2014

11476005 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KAREN LEE REDELL and
DOUGLAS HAROLD ROLLENDER
____________________

Appeal 2012-006291
Application 11/476,005
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-006291
Application 11/476,005
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
Appellants’ claimed subject matter relates to wireless network
elements performing packet data session handling functions using less than a
mobile station’s entire identifier. See generally Abstract and ¶ 1.
Claim 1, reproduced below, with the disputed limitation italicized, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of handling mobile station identifiers,
comprising:
programming at least one network element that used
entire mobile station identifiers in performing packet data
session handling functions between a control element on a first
network and a control element on a second network to use less
than the entire mobile station identifiers in communication
between the control element on the first network and the control
element on the second network; and
comparing, at the at least one network element, a
mobile station identifier associated with the control element
on the first network with a mobile station identifier associated
with the control element on the second network to perform the
packet data session handling functions in response to the
programming step.
Appeal 2012-006291
Application 11/476,005
3

Rejections1
Claim 1–15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as unpatentable
over Sliva (US 2004/0242245 A1; published Dec. 2, 2004) and Chambers
(US 2004/0242215 A1; published Dec. 2, 2004). Ans. 5–15.
Claims 1 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Andrew Hunter, MIN Bases IMSI and True IMSI,
Qualcomm Eng’r Services, Apr. 18, 2005 (“Hunter”) and Chambers. Ans.
16–19.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.” filed Sept. 29, 2011) and Reply
Brief (“Reply Br.” filed Feb. 29, 2012). We refer to the Briefs and the
Answer (“Ans.” mailed Dec. 29, 2011) for the respective positions of
Appellants and the Examiner.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over Sliva
and Hunter because neither reference teaches or suggests comparison of
mobile station identifiers “associated with different networks.” App. Br.
17. See also id. at 15–17; Reply Br. 2–6. Appellants concede “Sliva
discloses comparing a 5 digit MEC received from a mobile terminal with a
stored MEC.” App. Br. 17.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over Hunter
and Chambers because in Hunter “there is no comparing of mobile station

1 Because the Examiner withdrew the rejections under § 112 (Ans. 3–4),
those rejections are not before us.
Appeal 2012-006291
Application 11/476,005
4
identifiers associated with different networks.” Id. at 24. See also App.
Br. 24–26; Reply Br. 6–7. Appellants concede “Hunter discloses comparing
MCC and IMSCll_12 associated with the mobile unit with stored values of
MCC and IMSCll_12.” App. Br. 25
We are unpersuaded of error with either of the Examiner’s rejections
of claim 1. To the extent Appellants argue error because the references do
not teach comparing identifiers associated with different networks, we are
unpersuaded of error because claim 1 does not explicitly require that the first
and second networks are different networks. Moreover, Appellants concede
that both Sliva and Hunter disclose comparing a received mobile identifier
with stored mobile identifiers, but have not persuaded us that all stored
mobile identifiers – in the case of either Sliva’s stored MECs or Hunter’s
stored values of MCC and IMSCll_12 – are associated only with the same
network as the network of the received mobile identifier. In other words,
even if claim 1 is construed to require the first and second networks to be
different networks, we are unpersuaded that Sliva and Hunter would have at
least suggested to one skilled in the art “comparing, at the at least one
network element, a mobile station identifier associated with the control
element on the first network with a mobile station identifier associated with
the control element on the second network to perform the packet data
session handling functions in response to the programming step.”
Because Appellants argue all claims as a group and we are
unpersuaded of error in either of the Examiner’s rejections of claim 1, we
affirm the Examiner’s rejection of all pending claims.
Appeal 2012-006291
Application 11/476,005
5

DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject
claims 1–15.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

lp