Ex Parte Wijayanathan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 26, 2016

12855540 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 26, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/855,540 08/12/2010
82313 7590 10/28/2016
Conley Rose - BlackBerry Files
Attn: J. Robert Brown
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Maiyuran Wijayanathan
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
34549-US-PAT
(4214-19801)
CONFIRMATION NO.
1127
EXAMINER
AMBA YE, MEW ALE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2016 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAIYURAN WIJAYANATHAN, NOUSHAD NAQVI, and
CLAUDE JEAN-FREDERIC ARZELIER
Appeal2015-004192
Application 12/855,540 1
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, JOHN F. HORVATH, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-14, 22-35, and 37--46,
which are all of the claims pending on appeal. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM. 2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Research In Motion
Limited. App. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed October 17, 2014
("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed November 25, 2014 ("Ans.");
Final Office Action mailed May 28, 2014 ("Final Act."); and original
Specification filed August 12, 2010 ("Spec.").
Appeal2015-004192
Application 12/855,540
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "user equipment" ("UE") such as a
mobile telephone "configured to detect an event of one of the UE changing
routing area and the UE changing radio access technology from a long-term
evolution (L TE) network to (1) a global system for mobile communications
(GSM) evolution radio access network (GERAN) or (2) a universal mobile
telecommunication system terrestrial radio access network (UTRAN), and,
responsive to detecting the event, to deactivate one of a packet data protocol
(PDP) context and an evolved packet system (EPS) bearer." Abstract.
Claims 1, 22, 33, 37, and 44 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative
of Appellants' invention, as reproduced with disputed limitations
emphasized below:
1. A user equipment (UE) comprising:
a processor configured to cause the UE to:
activate one of a packet data protocol (PDP) context
and an evolved packet system (EPS) bearer via a first
access node using a first Internet Protocol (IP) version
type;
receive a message from a second access node during
a handover from the first access node to the second access
node; and
responsive to the message indicating a second IP
version type, deactivate the one of the PDP context and
the EPS bearer that is associated with the first IP version
type.
App. Br. 17 (Claims App.).
2
Appeal2015-004192
Application 12/855,540
E'xaminer;s Rejections and References
(1) Claims 1-14, 22, 33-35, and 37--46 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over 3GPP Change Request
Document, 3GPP TSG CT WG 1 Meeting #57, San Antonio (TX), USA,
February 9-19, 2009 ("DI"), 3GPP Change Request Document, 3GPP TSG
CT WG4 Meeting #44, Los Angeles, USA, June 22-26, 2009 ("D2"), and
3GPP Change Request Document, 3GPP-SA WG2 Meeting #72, HangZhou,
China, March 30 -April 3, 2009 ("D43"). Final Act. 4--12.
(2) Claims 23-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over DI, D2, D4, and Lind, US Publication 2009/025072 Al,
published Oct. 8, 2009) ("Lind"). Final Act. 12-16.4
ANALYSIS
§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-14, 22-35, and 37-46
based on DJ, D2, and D4
With respect to independent claim 1, the Examiner finds D 1 teaches
user equipment (UE) comprising a processor configured to cause the UE to
( 1) "activate one of a packet data protocol (PDP) context and an evolved
packet system (EPS) bearer via a first access node using a first Internet
Protocol (IP) version type" and (2) "responsive to the message indicating a
second IP version type, deactivate one of the PDP context and the EPS
bearer that is associated with IP version type." Final Act. 4 (citing D 1, §
3 The Examiner and Appellants use this designation for this reference. Final
Act. 4; Br. 12.
4 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 1-14, 22-35, and 37-
46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. See Pre-Brief Appeal Conference
decision; Ans. 3.
3
Appeal2015-004192
Application I2/855,540
6.1.3 .1 & last two paragraphs). The Examiner also finds D2 discloses a
similar feature, i.e., "deactivate at least one of a packet data protocol (PDP)
context and an evolved packet system (EPS) bearer that are associated
[specifically] with a second IP version type." Id. at 4 (citing D2, § 7.3.2).
The Examiner acknowledges DI and D2 fail to disclose "receiving a
message from a second access node during a handover from the first access
node to the second access node," but relies on D4 for this missing feature in
order to support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 5 (citing D4, §
5.5.2. I .3).
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding DI, D2,
and D4, but do not challenge the Examiner's rationale for making the
combination. In particular, Appellants acknowledge DI teaches (I) "the
network shall override the PDP request by the MS to a single PDP type"
and (2) "the PDP Type filed is overridden during PDP context activation."
App. Br. I3 (citing DI,§ 6.1.3.I & last two paragraphs). However,
Appellants argue "the function of 'overriding the PDP' being performed by
the network in DI is not equivalent to deactivating a PDP context" and, as
such, "DI fails to disclose that the UE, 'responsive to the message indicating
a second IP version type, deactivates one of the PDP context and the EPS
bearer that is associated with IP version type." Id.
Appellants also argue "D2 is directed solely to the interactions
between an SGSN and GGSN, which are network elements -not a UE to
which claim I is directed" and, as such, does not teach "a UE 'deactivating
the one of the PDP context and the EPS bearer that is associated with the
first IP version type." Id. at I4 (citing D2 § 7.3.I, p. 4, last two paragraphs).
Lastly, Appellants argue "while D4 appears to disclose that a UE receives
4
Appeal2015-004192
Application I2/855,540
'[a] HO from E-UTRAN Command' ... D4 is completely silent as to a UE
deactivating a PDP context, whether during a handover or not." Id. at I5
(citing D4 § 5.5.2.1.3-I ).
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Instead, we agree with the
Examiner that the cited references teach all the limitations of claim I. Final
Act. 3--4; Ans. 3---6 (citing DI,§ 6.1.3.I; D2 § 7.3.I; D4 § 5.5.2.1.3-I). As
such, we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein.
Id. For example, DI, D2, and D4 each describe proposed change requests to
the existing 3GPP Specification covering all GSM (including GPRS and
EDGE), L TE radio access network (RAN), or UMTS Terrestrial RAN
(UTRAN). All three cited references disclose (1) PDP context activation,
i.e., when a PDP context is established between the UE and the network, and
(2) handover procedure. See DI§ 6.1.3.I; D2 § 7.3.I; D4 § 5.5.2.1.3.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, D2 clearly discloses deactivating the
PDP context that is associated with an IP version type. Ans. 4 (citing D2 §
7.3.5). Similarly, D4 clearly discloses a handover message between the first
access node and the second access node. Ans. 5 (citing D4 § 5.5.2.1.3;
handover command message between source MME and the source eNodeB).
For these reasons and in the absence of Appellants' rebuttal of the
Examiner's factual findings and explanations, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of independent claim I and similarly, independent
claims 22, 33, 37, and 44 and their respective dependent claims 2-I4, 23-32,
34, 35, 38--43, 45, and 46, which Appellants do not argue separately. App.
Br. I5.
5
Appeal2015-004192
Application 12/855,540
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-14, 22-35, and 37-
46 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-14,
22-35, and 37--46.
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).
AFFIRMED
6