Rogier Noldus et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2020002057 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2021)

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.
13/822,813 04/03/2013 Rogier August Caspar Joseph Noldus 4015-8485 / P30636-US1 1069
24112 7590 07/27/2021
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
GEBRE, MESSERET F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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 ROGIER AUGUST CASPAR JOSEPH NOLDUS and
JOS DEN HARTOG
___________

Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, JAMES B. ARPIN, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 16–18 and 20–29. Final Act. 2.2 Claims 1–15

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42.
Appellant identifies the real party-in-interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM
Ericsson. Appeal Br. 2.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed
July 22, 2019), Claims Appendix (“Claims App.,” filed August 9, 2019), and
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed January 17, 2020); the Final Office Action
(“Final Act.,” mailed January 22, 2019), Advisory Action (“Adv. Act.,”
mailed April 23, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
November 26, 2019); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed March 13, 2013).
Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in
their entirety, we refer to these documents.
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

2

and 19 are cancelled. Id. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed methods and network entities relate to
a method for checking a status of destination network entity.
More in particular, the invention relates to a method for checking
a signaling path between an originating party and a destination
party, e.g.[,] in an Internet Protocol (IP) based communications
network, such as a Voice over IP (VoIP) network or a Packet
Switched (PS) network. More in particular, the invention relates
to a method for checking a signaling path between an originating
party and a destination party in a Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
based communications network, such as an Internet Protocol (IP)
Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) network.
Spec., 1:5–13.
As noted above, claims 16–18 and 20–29 are pending. Claims 16, 25,
and 29 are independent. Claims App. 2 (claim 16), 4 (claim 25), 5–6
(claim 29). Claims 17, 18, and 20–24 depend directly or indirectly from
claim 16; and claims 26–28 depend directly from claim 25. Id. at 2–5.
Claim 16, reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized, is
illustrative.
16. A method for checking a status of a destination
network entity in an Internet Protocol based multimedia
communications network comprising a requesting network
entity, the destination network entity, and an intermediate
network entity acting on behalf of the destination network entity
and operatively connected between the requesting network entity
and the destination network entity, the status comprising an
existence, reachability, and operational condition status of the
destination network entity, the method comprising:
transmitting, by the requesting network entity, a probe
request to the intermediate network entity, the probe request
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

3

requesting the intermediate network entity to determine the
status of the destination network entity and to indicate to the
requesting network entity the determined status of the destination
network entity for a particular type of communication session,
said type comprising at least one of a messaging, voice, and
video type of communication session;
the intermediate network entity transmitting a final
response in response to receiving the probe request to the
requesting network entity, the final response providing an
indication of whether the destination network entity exists, an
indication of whether the destination network entity is reachable
by the requesting network entity, and an indication of whether
the destination network entity is busy for the particular type of
communication session indicated by the probe request.
Id. at 2 (emphases added). Independent claims 25 and 29 recite limitations
corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 16. Id. at 4, 5–6.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name3 Reference Published/Issued Filed
Ejzak US 2003/0026245 A1 Feb. 6, 2003 July 31, 2001
Mamakos US 2007/0263552 A1 Nov. 15, 2007 Feb. 23, 2007
Bantukul US 2009/0040923 A1 Feb. 12, 2009 July 31, 2008
Lu US 2011/0029812 A1 Feb. 3, 2011 July 30, 2010
George US 2011/0225307 A1 Sept. 15, 2011 June 1, 2011
Stille WO 2010/099829 A1 Sept. 10, 2010 Mar. 6, 2009
The Examiner rejects: (1) claims 16–18, 20, 21, 23–27, and 29 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Stille, George, Bantukul, and Mamakos
(Final Act. 7–25); (2) claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over

3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only.
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

4

Stille, George, Bantukul, Mamakos, and Ejzak (id. at 25–26); and
(3) claim 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Stille, George,
Bantukul, Mamakos, and Lu (id. at 26–27).
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and
contentions on claims 16, 25, and 29; so do we. See Appeal Br. 5–6, 12;
Ans. 3. Arguments not made are forfeited.4 Unless otherwise indicated, we
adopt the Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action, the Advisory
Action, and the Answer as our own and add any additional findings of fact
for emphasis. We address the rejections below.
ANALYSIS
Obviousness over Stille, George, Bantukul, and Mamakos, alone or in
combination with Ejzak or Lu
1. Independent Claims 16, 25, and 29
As noted above, the Examiner rejects independent claims 16, 25,
and 29 as obvious over the combined teachings of Stille, George, Bantukul,
and Mamakos. Final Act. 3–12, 15–20, 21–25. In particular, with respect to

4 See In re Google Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 863 (Fed. Cir. 2020)
(“We interpret the Patent Office to be arguing that Google’s failure to raise
its lexicography arguments, inadvertent or not, compels a finding of
forfeiture.”); 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018) (“Except as provided for in
§§ 41.41, 41.47 and 41.52, any arguments or authorities not included in the
appeal brief will be refused consideration by the Board for purposes of the
present appeal.”).
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

5

claim 16, the Examiner finds Stille teaches or suggests the majority of the
claim’s limitations. Id. at 7–8 (citing Stille, 7:9–28, 8:1–10, Figs. 2, 3).
Stille’s Figures 2 and 3 are reproduced below.

“Figure 2 illustrates schematically in a block diagram a network architecture
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

6

according to an embodiment of the [claimed] invention[, and] Figure 3 is a
signalling diagram illustrating signalling according to an embodiment of the
[claimed] invention.” Stille, 6:7–11.
Referring to Figure 3, Stille discloses,
an example signalling flow for the situation illustrated in
Figure 2. The following numbering corresponds to the
numbering in Figure 3:
S1. Alice 8 sends a SIP OPTIONS message to Bob’s SIP proxy 9
in order to query the capabilities of Bob’s devices 10, 11.
S2. The SIP proxy 9 sends the SIP OPTIONS message to Bob’s
[Push-to-Talk (PTT)] device 10.
S3. Bob’s PTT device 10 responds to the SIP proxy 9 with a
SIP 200 OK message that includes information identifying the
device 10 and describing its PTT-service capability and an audio
media capability.
S4. The storage function stores this information and awaits
further responses from other devices.
S5. The SIP proxy 9 sends the SIP OPTIONS message to Bob’s
chat device 11.
S6. Bob’s chat device 11 responds to the SIP proxy 9 with a
SIP 200 OK message that includes information identifying the
device 11 and describing its [Open Mobile Alliance (OMA)]
Instant 25 Messaging (IM) capability and [Transmission Control
Protocol (TCP)] based [Message Session Relay Protocol
(MSRP)] transfer media capability.
S7. The storage function stores this information and if necessary
awaits further responses from other devices.
Id. at 7:6–28 (emphasis added).
The Examiner finds Stille discloses that Alice 8 (i.e., a requesting
network entity) transmits a request for status to SIP proxy 9 (i.e., an
intermediate network entity), which is associated with Bob’s PTT device 10
(i.e., a destination network device). Final Act. 7–8. The Examiner further
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

7

finds that “Bob’s PTT device 10 responds to the SIP proxy 9 with a SIP 200
OK message that includes information identifying the device 10 and
describing its PTT-service capability and an audio media capability.” Stille,
7:14–16 (emphases added); see Final Act. 8. We agree with the Examiner.
Stille discloses that the communication session may be a voice
communication session. E.g., Stille, 7:14–16, Fig. 3 (“S3. SIP 200 OK
Contact:+g.poc.talkburst SDP:m=audio”). Nevertheless, the Examiner relies
on George to teach or suggest that “said type compris[es] at least one of a
messaging, voice, and video type of communication session,” as recited in
claim 16. Final Act. 8–9 (citing George ¶ 395, Fig. 29); see Claims App. 2
(emphasis added). We agree with the Examiner.5
The Examiner then finds that Stille and George together “do[] not
explicitly disclose[] the status comprising a reachability, and operational
condition status of the destination network entity; Providing an indication
whether the destination network entity exists, an indication of whether the
destination network entity is reachable by the requesting network entity.”
Id. at 10. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Bantukul teaches or suggests,
the status comprising an existence ([0043] discloses providing
availability), reachability ([0044] discloses providing
unavailability status), and operational condition status of the
destination network entity ([0058-0061] discloses the SIP entity
request the availability/ operational status of SIP server through
proxy. Proxy probes SIP server for status, and upon
determination, notifies the requesting SIP entity, the status of SIP
server; fig. 6).

5 In sustaining a multiple-reference rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), we
may rely on one reference alone without designating the affirmance as a new
ground of rejection. In re Boyer, 363 F.2d 455, 458 n.2 (CCPA 1966)
(citing In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961)).
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

8

Providing an indication whether the destination network
entity exists ([0043] discloses providing availability status), an
indication of whether the destination network entity is reachable
by the requesting network entity ([0043-44] discloses providing
availability stats).
Id. at 10–11 (italics added).
Further, the Examiner finds Bantukul discloses, “One problem with
the conventional call setup scenarios with SIP entities, including SIP entities
in an IMS network, occurs when a call session control function becomes
unavailable.” Bantukul ¶ 4; see Final Act. 11; Ans. 12. The Examiner finds
the modification of Stille’s teachings in view of those of Bantukul “would
allow distributing operational status to avoid attempting communication to a
failed network entity. (Bantukul [0004]).” Final Act. 11. Therefore, the
Examiner determines a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
have had reason to combine the teachings of Stille, George and Bantukul to
achieve the “existence” and “reachability” portions of the disputed
limitations. Id.
The Examiner finds, however, that Stille, George, and Bantukul
together “do[] not show providing an indication of whether the destination
network entity is busy.” Id. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds, “Mamakos
discloses providing an indication of whether the destination network entity is
busy (Mamakos, in [0018] discloses device data includes, but is not limited
to, a device status entry. For example, a device status entry indicates an
operating condition of the device such as ‘operational,’ ‘malfunctioning,’ or
‘busy,’).” Id. at 11–12.
The Examiner finds the modification of Stille’s teachings in view of
those of Mamakos “would allow exchanging operational status of network
entities to avoid communication to a failed network entity.” Final Act. 12;
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

9

see also Mamakos ¶ 17 (“The method includes generating device data S201,
detecting a polling request S203, transmitting, in a common communications
session and in response to the polling request, at least a portion of the device
data and a configuration request S205, and receiving a configuration file
corresponding to the configuration request S207.”). Therefore, the
Examiner determines a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
have had reason to combine the teachings of Stille, George, Bantukul, and
Mamakos to achieve the methods and entities recited in the independent
claims. Final Act. 12.
Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show that Stille, George,
Bantukul, and Mamakos teach or suggest the disputed limitations of
claims 16, 25, and 29 for three reasons. Appeal Br. 7–11; see Reply Br. 2–4.
On this record, Appellant does not persuade us the Examiner errs in the
findings regarding the combined teachings of Stille, George, Bantukul, and
Mamakos.
First, Appellant contends the Examiner errs in relying on Bantukul to
teach or suggest, “providing of an indication of whether the destination
network entity exists, [and] an indication of whether the destination network
entity is reachable by the requesting network entity.” Appeal Br. 7–10; see,
e.g., Claims App. 2 (emphases added). In particular, Appellant contends, “It
is not enough to simply find a reference that teaches providing an
unavailability or busy indication about just any network device to just any
other network device, and say it would [have been] obvious to combine such
teachings with the other references in order to reject the claims.” Appeal
Br. 7–8 (emphasis added); see Reply Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

10

The Examiner finds, however,
Bantukul discloses the status of an entity comprising an existence
(see [0043] discloses providing availability), reachability (see
[0015] discloses “congested status” refers to the operating status
of an unavailable application; [0016] discloses “failed status”
refers to the operating status of an unavailable application; and
[0044] discloses providing unavailability status), and operational
condition status of the destination network entity ([0058-0061]
discloses the SIP entity request the availability/operational status
of SIP server through proxy. Proxy probes SIP server for status,
and upon determination, notifies the requesting SIP entity, the
status of SIP server; fig. 6).
Ans. 5 (emphases added). Moreover, Bantukul, like Stille and George,
employs SIP signalling protocols to establish communication sessions.
Bantukul ¶¶ 4, 43, 44; see Stille, 7:14–16 (quoted above), Fig. 3 (“S2. SIP
200 OK”); George, Fig. 29 (“SIP 200 (OK) 29-25”); see also Bantukul ¶ 3
(“SIP entities, such as SIP redirect servers, SIP proxy servers, and IP
multimedia subsystem (IMS) entities, communicate using the SIP
protocol.”).
Appellant’s Specification discloses:
The final response may be a 200 Ok status message if the
destination network entity exists and is reachable, and may be a
non-2xx final response if the destination network entity does not
exist and/or is not reachable, and/or its operational condition
does not allow communication with the destination network
entity.
Spec., 4:3–7 (emphasis added); see id. at 1:10–13 (“More in particular, the
invention relates to a method for checking a signaling path between an
originating party and a destination party in a Session Initiation Protocol
(SIP) based communications network, such as an Internet Protocol (IP)
Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) network.”), 1:19–21 (“The remainder of the
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

11

invention will focus on SIP session, but the principle of the invention is
equally applicable to a stand-alone SIP transaction.”).
Thus, we understand Stille, George, and Bantukul together teach or
suggest substantially the same SIP response indicating existence and
reachability that the Specification discloses. Appellant does not contend that
the SIP 200 OK response disclosed in the Specification is different from the
SIP 200 OK response disclosed in the applied references or that Stille’s SIP
200 OK response is limited in content.6 Stille, 8:1–10; see In re Preda, 401
F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]t is proper to take into account not only
specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled
in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”).7
Appellant further contends, “at best the combination of Bantukul with
Stille and George would teach some kind of unavailability status
determination for an application server cluster, e.g., the group call server of
Stille, not of a destination network entity as claimed.” Appeal Br. 8. In
particular, Appellant contends
Figure 1 of Bantukul clearly shows that the server clusters are
not destination entities. Instead, the application server clusters
appear to be more intermediate entities between the requesting
devices (112, 114)/network (1) and the destination devices (116,

6 Although the Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Stille, George,
and Bantukul to teach these limitations, because both Stille and George
disclose a SIP 200 OK response, it may be that fewer than all three
references would still teach or suggest these limitations. See supra note 5.
7 See Okajima v. Bourdeau, 261 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“[T]he
absence of specific findings on the level of skill in the art does not give rise
to reversible error ‘where the prior art itself reflects an appropriate level and
a need for testimony is not shown’”) (quoting Litton Indus. Prods., Inc. v.
Solid State Sys. Corp., 755 F.2d 158, 163 (Fed. Cir. 1985)).
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

12

118)/network (2). Simply because the application server clusters
are “destinations” for some signaling, e.g., a query, does not
mean they represent destination network entities.
Id. at 8–9; see Reply Br. 2.
As an initial matter, Appellant does not precisely define a “destination
network entity.” Instead, the Specification broadly describes embodiments
of a destination network entity, for example, as “a domain capable of
receiving and accepting SIP session establishment requests” (Spec., 4:11–
12), “an IMS subscriber” (id. at 4:18), “a terminal associated with the IMS
subscriber” (id. at 4:22–23), or “an IMS network service entity, wherein the
network entity acting for the IMS network service entity may be an
Application Server (AS)” (id. at 5:6–8).
The Examiner finds, “Nowhere in applicant’s instant application [is it]
mentioned that [an] SIP server is not a destination entity or nowhere in
Bantukul it was mentioned that the SIP server could not be considered as a
destination entity as indicated in the instant application.” Adv. Act. 3.8 We
agree with the Examiner.
Moreover, the Examiner relies on Stille, not George or Bantukul, to
teach or suggest the destination network entity, e.g., Bob’s PTT device 10.
Final Act. 7–8. Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually when the rejection is based on the references’
combined teachings. Ans. 3–4; Adv. Act. 2–3; Final Act. 3; see In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Again, we agree with the Examiner.

8 We treat the cover sheet of the non-paginated Advisory Action as page 1.
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

13

Appellant fails to persuade us the Examiner errs in finding Bantukul
teaches or suggests, “providing of an indication of whether the destination
network entity exists, [and] an indication of whether the destination network
entity is reachable by the requesting network entity,” as recited in claims 16,
25, and 29. Consequently, we are not persuaded of Examiner error by this
first reason.
Second, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to show Mamakos
teaches or suggests, “providing . . . an indication of whether the destination
network entity is busy for the particular type of communication session
indicated by the probe request.” Appeal Br. 10–11; see, e.g., Claims App. 2
(emphasis added). In particular, Appellant contends:
Mamakos discloses a target device 301 indicating to a proxy a
“malfunction” or “busy” in response to receiving a request from
the proxy. However, this teaching is simply the explanation of
how the proxy 303 obtains such information from a remote
device, i.e., by asking the remote device for such information
about the remote device. It is not enough to simply find a
reference that teaches providing information about a busy status
to combine with the other references in order to reject the claims.
The Examiner must find a teaching of a busy status indication
provided by an intermediate network entity to a requesting
network entity about a destination network entity.
Appeal Br. 10. Appellant further contends, unlike the claimed methods and
entities, “Stille is concerned with determining capability information, not
availability information, from devices already known to be available for a
multimedia conference call.” Id. at 11 (emphases added).
Nevertheless, as discussed above, the Examiner relies on Stille, not
Mamakos, to teach or suggest a requesting network entity seeking capability
information from a destination network entity via an intermediate network
entity. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Stille, 7:9–28, 8:1–10, Figs. 2, 3). Moreover,
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

14

we are not persuaded that Stille’s capability information, excludes
availability information. See also Stille, 4:4–6 (“The capabilities are
optionally selected from any of a service capability, a codec and a media
capability, although any type of capability information specific to the devices
can be included.” (emphasis added)); but see Reply Br. 3 (“Such capabilities
determinations are unrelated to the reachability or availability of the end
device.”). For example, although Stille discloses, “[e]ach of Bob’s devices
has performed a successful registration process and so are available in the
network,” that does not necessarily mean that each of Bob’s devices are
available to Alice. See Stille, 6:23–24 (emphasis added). Further, as noted
above, Appellant cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually when the rejection is based on the references’ combined
teachings. Ans. 3–4; Adv. Act. 3; Final Act. 3; see Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097;
Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Again, we agree with the Examiner.
Appellant fails to persuade us the Examiner errs in finding Mamakos
teaches or suggests, “providing . . . an indication of whether the destination
network entity is busy for the particular type of communication session
indicated by the probe request,” as recited in claims 16, 25, and 29.
Consequently, we are not persuaded of Examiner error by this second
reason.
Third, Appellant contends the Examiner fails to identify an adequate
reason for a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art to have combined the
teachings of Bantukul and Mamakos with those of Stille and George.
Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 2–3. We disagree with Appellant.
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

15

Initially, Appellant contends:
It is not enough to simply find a reference that teaches providing
an unavailability or busy indication about just any network
device to just any other network device, and say it would [have
been] obvious to combine such teachings with the other
references in order to reject the claims. The Examiner must find
art teaching the claimed indications in the same context as
claimed, i.e., provided by an intermediate network entity to a
requesting network entity about a destination network entity,
where the intermediate network entity acts on behalf of the
destination network entity. In the absence of that, the Examiner
must explain why it would [have been] obvious to apply
teachings specific to particular network devices of one reference
to different network devices of another reference.
Appeal Br. 7–8 (italics added). In particular, Appellant contends, “at best
the combination of Bantukul with Stille and George would teach some kind
of unavailability status determination for an application server cluster, e.g.,
the group call server of Stille, not of a destination network entity as
claimed.” Id. at 8.
Nevertheless, as noted above, the Examiner relies on Stille, not
Bantukul or Mamakos, to teach or suggest the destination network entity.
Moreover, interpreting “destination network entity” in light of the
Specification’s disclosure (see Spec., 4:11–12, 4:18, 4:22–23, 5:6–8), we are
not persuaded that Bantukul’s application server cluster does not teach or
suggest the recited, destination network entity. Moreover, even if Appellant
is correct that some of the Examiner’s reasons rely on combining teachings
of references dealing with different network devices, the Examiner provides
additional reasons why a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art would
have combined the teachings of the applied references. See Ans. 12–13
(citing Bantukul ¶¶ 4, 8). Thus, Appellant does not persuade us that the
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

16

Examiner improperly applies only “teachings specific to particular network
devices of one reference to different network devices of another reference.”
See Appeal Br. 8.
Further, Appellant contends the Examiner’s proffered reason to have
combined the teachings of Stille, George, Bantukul, and Mamakos is
insufficient:
Because, however, all of Stille’s end devices involved in the
multimedia conference call by definition exist, are reachable, and
are not busy, one skilled in the art would not be motivated to
modify Stille (or the combination of Stille and George), to
determine whether any of the end devices exist, are reachable,
and are busy.
Id. at 11.
As discussed above, however, Appellant’s contention is based on an
overly narrow interpretation of terms: “capabilities” and “availability,” as
taught or suggested in the applied references. Final Act. 7–8; see Stille, 4:4–
6, 6:23–24, 8:1–10. Moreover, this contention again improperly challenges
the references individually, rather than what they teach or suggest in
combination. Ans. 12; Adv. Act. 3; Final Act. 3; see Merck, 800 F.2d at
1097; Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. Thus, we disagree with Appellant.
Appellant fails to persuade us the Examiner errs in finding a person of
ordinary skill in the relevant art would have had reason to combine the
teachings of Stille, George, Bantukul, and Mamakos to achieve the methods
and entities, as recited in claims 16, 25, and 29. Consequently, we are not
persuaded of Examiner error by this third reason.
On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in rejecting
independent claim 16, as well as independent claims 25 and 29, as obvious
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

17

over the combined teachings of Stille, George, Bantukul, and Mamakos.
Therefore, we sustain that rejection.
2. Dependent Claims 17, 18, 20–24, and 26–28
Appellant does not challenge the rejections of dependent claims 17,
18, 20–24, and 26–28, separately from the challenges to their base claims,
claim 16 or 25. Appeal Br. 12. Consequently, because we are not persuaded
the Examiner errs in rejecting claims 16 and 25, we also are not persuaded
the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 17, 18, 20–24, and 26–28 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Stille, George, Bantukul, and Mamakos,
alone or in combination with the teachings of Ejzak or Lu. Therefore, we
also sustain those rejections.
DECISION
1. The Examiner does not err in rejecting:
a. claims 16–18, 20, 21, 23–27, and 29 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Stille, George, Bantukul, and Mamakos;
b. claim 22 as obvious over the combined teachings of Stille,
George, Bantukul, Mamakos, and Ejzak; and
c. claim 28 as obvious over the combined teachings of Stille,
George, Bantukul, Mamakos, and Lu.
2. Thus, on this record, claims 16–18 and 20–29 are not patentable.
CONCLUSION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 16–18 and 20–29.
Appeal 2020-002057
Application 13/822,813

18

In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
16–18, 20,
21, 23–27, 29
103(a) Stille, George,
Bantukul, Mamakos
16–18, 20,
21, 23–27, 29

22 103(a) Stille, George,
Bantukul, Mamakos,
Ejzak
22
28 103(a) Stille, George,
Bantukul, Mamakos,
Lu
28
Overall
Outcome
16–18, 20–29
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018).
AFFIRMED