Ex Parte Wassifi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2014

11388333 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte HAMID WASSIFI, PHILIPPE BOUCKAERT, and
MICHEL ANSLOT
____________

Appeal 2012-005817
Application 11/388,333
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
CHARLES BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges.

THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner
twice rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 7, 10, and 12–15, all the claims pending in the
application. Claims 2, 6, 8, 9, and 11 are cancelled. We have jurisdiction
over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal 2012-005817
Application 11/388,333

2

The present invention relates generally to a routing element passing
messages between an application server and a plurality of signaling
gateways. See Abstract.

Claim 15 is illustrative:
15. A communication network comprising:
an application server;
a plurality of signalling [sic] gateways;
a routing information store; and
a routing element operatively coupled to the application
server and the plurality of signalling gateways, and configured to
receive a message from the application server comprising routing
information, to store the routing information received from the
application server at the routing information store, and to forward a
second message received from the application server to a second
signaling gateway, and configured to receive a message from a one of
the signalling gateways comprising routing information, to store the
routing information received from the one of the signalling gateways
at the routing information store, and to forward a second message
received from the one of the signalling gateways to the application
server or another one of the plurality of signalling gateways in
accordance with the routing information received from the one of the
signalling gateways, wherein the routing element is further configured
to receive a routing key registration request from the application
server, to forward the routing key registration request to a routing
signalling gateway, to receive an acknowledgement comprising a
routing context from the routing signalling gateway, to store the
routing context identifying the routing signalling gateway and the
application server at the routing information store, and to forward the
acknowledgement to the application server.

Appellants appeal the following rejections:1

1 The Examiner withdrew/vacated the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (see
Ans. 15).
Appeal 2012-005817
Application 11/388,333

3
R1. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Lamberton (US 2004/0001517 A1, Jan. 1, 2004); and
R2. Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 10, and 12–14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lamberton and Tinsley (US 6,965,592
B2, Nov. 15, 2005).
Claim Groupings
Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claim 15, as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R.
41.37(c)(1)(vii).

ANALYSIS
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claim 15
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lamberton discloses the
routing features, as set forth in claim 15?
Appellants contend “the Lamberton reference only teaches signals
originating from the signaling end point (SEP) going to the signaling
gateway (SG) and then to the application server process load balancer (ASP-
LB), which forwards the signal to a number of application server processes
running an application service (AS/ASP), and not in the opposite direction”
(App. Br. 13). Appellants further contend that “the ASP-LB 38 internally
acknowledges further registration requests, and does not forward those to
the signaling gateway” (id. at 14). We disagree with Appellants.
We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner's findings and
conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to
the following points of emphasis.
Appeal 2012-005817
Application 11/388,333

4
Although Appellants contend that Lamberton only discloses signals
originating from the SEP, going to the SG, then to the ASP-LB, which
forwards to the AS/ASP, and not in the opposite direction (see App. Br. 13),
the Examiner finds, and we agree, that Lamberton’s Fig. 4 illustrates a flow
of messages in both directions (see Fig. 4, elements 42, 46, 54, and 58).
Specifically, Lamberton’s Fig. 4 shows that not only do messages flow from
the SG to the ASP-LB and then to the AS/ASP, but messages also flow in
the opposite direction. Therefore, we find that Appellants’ argument is not
consistent with the disclosure of Lamberton.
Furthermore, although Appellants contend that “the ASP-LB 38
internally acknowledges further registration requests, and does not forward
those to the signaling gateway” (App. Br. 14), the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Lamberton’s Fig. 4 “shows ACK messages between the routing
element ASP-LB, signaling gate SG 34 and application servers AS AASP
40A and 40B” (Ans. 18). As for Lamberton’s specific disclosure that “the
ASP-LB 38 internally acknowledges further registration requests, and does
not forward those to the signaling gateway” (see ¶ 35), we agree with the
Examiner that this only pertains to a particular situation (see Ans. 18), i.e.,
further registration requests. However, for a first registration request, the
message is indeed forwarded by the ASP-LB 38 to the signaling gateway 34
(Lamberton ¶ 35; see also Fig. 4). Furthermore, Appellants have not shown
that Lamberton’s acknowledgement sent from the signaling gateway does
not include “routing context” given that Lamberton discloses that “the ASP-
LB 38 uses the SLS and Routing Context (RC) as a routing criteria to the
ASPs: every message carrying the same SLS and RC are dispatched to the
same ASP” (¶ 31).
Appeal 2012-005817
Application 11/388,333

5
Therefore, based on the record before us, we find no error in the
Examiner’s anticipation rejection of representative claim 15, essentially for
the reasons indicated by the Examiner.

Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 10, and 12–14
Regarding the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 10, and 12–14,
Appellants merely reiterate their contentions as noted supra and add that
“the Tinsley reference does not cure any of the previously presented
deficiencies of the Lamberton reference” (see App. Br. 17–24). Given that
we have not found any deficiencies in Lamberton, we sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 10, and 12–14 for the same reasons as noted
supra.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) and § 103(a) rejections.
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

tkl