Level 3 Communications, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 4, 2020

15595384 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 4, 2020)

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.
15/595,384 05/15/2017 Patrick S. Callahan 0449-US-C1 1161
83579 7590 06/04/2020
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
EXAMINER
ROUDANI, OUSSAMA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/04/2020 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):
patent.docketing@centurylink.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PATRICK S. CALLAHAN,
RICHARD DEAN TERPSTRA, and ADAM CHARLES UZELAC
Appeal 2019-001344
Application 15/595,384
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JAMES B. ARPIN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE,
Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies Level 3 Communications, LLC as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-001344
Application 15/595,384

2
TECHNOLOGY
The application relates to “differentiated routing of communication
services through a communication network domain according to routing plan
information associated with an access point of a subscriber terminal into the
network domain.” Spec. ¶ 2.
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. A differentiated routing system comprising:
[(A)] a computing system comprising at least one
processor and in communication with a subscriber terminal and
a first network domain; and
[(B)] a core routing engine (CRE) executable by the at
least one processor to:
[(B.1)] receive a request for a communication
service from the subscriber terminal through an access
point at which the subscriber terminal accesses the first
network domain; and
[(B.2)] when the communication service is to be
routed to a second network domain:
[(B.2.i)] identify the access point;
[(B.2.ii)] include a tag in the request, the tag
selected based on the identified access point, and
the tag including information to be used by the
second network domain for routing the
communication service; and
[(B.2.iii)] transmit the request to the second
network domain.
Appeal 2019-001344
Application 15/595,384

3
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art references:
Name Number Date
Hegarty US 2015/0043453 A1 Feb. 12, 2015
Shah US 2008/0244076 A1 Oct. 2, 2008
Soininen US 2003/0152042 A1 Aug. 14, 2003
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 3–9, and 11–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Hegarty and Shah. Final Act. 2.
Claims 2 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Hegarty, Shah, and Soininen. Final Act. 9.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of art teaches
or suggests (i) to “identify the access point” and (ii) “the tag selected based
on the identified access point,” as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding Hegarty teaches or suggests to
“route the communication service through the second network domain
according to the tag in the received request,” as recited in claim 5?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 3, 4, 8, 9, 11, 12, 15–17, and 20
Claim 1 recites (i) “identify the access point” and (ii) “the tag selected
based on the identified access point.” Independent claims 9 and 15 recite
commensurate limitations. Appeal Br. 13.
For “identify the access point,” the Examiner finds that “Appellant’s
disclosure does not define how or in what specific manner the access point is
Appeal 2019-001344
Application 15/595,384

4
identified” but that “[i]t is well known in the art that in IP based networks,
such as in Hegarty and Shah, communications sent from an access point are
packetized and encoded with the network address (i.e. identifier) of the
originating access point.” Ans. 4; see also Hegarty ¶ 1.
For “the tag selected based on the identified access point,” the
Examiner finds that Shah discloses that the tag is based on “location
information [that] is obtained from location circuitry within the associated
access point,” such as the access point’s GPS circuitry. Final Act. 5 (citing
Shah ¶ 36).
Appellant argues that the access point’s IP address (or “network
address” or “MAC address”) is not used to select the tag. Reply Br. 5.
However, claim 1 does not require that the feature used to identify the access
point (e.g., IP address) is the same feature on which the tag is based.
Instead, claim 1 recites that the tag is selected based on the access point, and
we agree with the Examiner that a tag selected based on the access point’s
GPS location teaches or suggests this limitation.
Appellant further argues that in Shah, the access point’s GPS location
is meant to serve as a proxy for the client device, but again the language of
claim 1 does not preclude this. See Appeal Br. 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 9, and 15, and their dependent claims 3, 4, 8, 11, 12, 16, 17, and
20, which Appellant argues are patentable for similar reasons. See Appeal
Br. 13; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2019-001344
Application 15/595,384

5
Claims 2 and 10
Appellant argues dependent claims 2 and 10 are patentable for the
same reasons as claim 1. Appeal Br. 12. For the reasons discussed above,
we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments for claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 10.
See Appeal Br. 12; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Claims 5–7, 13, 14, 18, and 19
Dependent claim 5 recites a “second network domain comprises a
second CRE to” “route the communication service through the second
network domain according to the tag in the received request.” Claims 13
and 18 recite commensurate limitations. Appeal Br. 15–16.
Hegarty discloses using the tag to determine whether to route a
message to the second network. Hegarty ¶¶ 16 (“indicating whether the
terminating call should be routed to the CS network”), 51 (“determines
whether the policy rule in relation to the service indicator . . . indicates that
the terminating call should be routed to the CS network”).
The Examiner determines this sufficiently teaches or suggests the
claimed limitation. Ans. 7–8. Appellant argues this is insufficient: “Hegarty
merely teaches that the tag is used to ensure the request does not reenter the
IMS network. There is no indication that the tag has an effect on routing the
request within the CS network.” Appeal Br. 15.
We agree with Appellant. Hegarty discloses that “the SCC-AS node
204 . . . parses the received SIP URI in the route header” and “the SCC-AS
node 204 determines whether the policy rule in relation to the service
indicator (e.g. ‘rcs’) indicates that the terminating call should be routed to
Appeal 2019-001344
Application 15/595,384

6
the CS network 107.” Hegarty ¶ 51 (emphases added). Hegarty’s Figure 2a
clearly depicts SCC-AS node 204 in the IMS network 106 (i.e., the first
network), not the CS network 107 (i.e., the second network). Thus, at best,
Hegarty discloses the first network domain comprises a CRE to determine
whether to route through the second network domain, but fails to disclose
such a component in the second network domain, as required by claim 1.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5,
13, and 18, and their dependent claims 6, 7, 14, and 19.
DECISION
The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection:
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed
1, 3–9, 11–
20
103 Hegarty, Shah 1, 3, 4, 8,
9, 11, 12,
15–17, 20
5–7, 13,
14, 18, 19
2, 10 103 Hegarty, Shah,
Soininen
2, 10
Overall
Outcome
1–4, 8–12,
15–17, 20
5–7, 13,
14, 18, 19
TIME TO RESPOND
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.36(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART