Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 22, 2021

2020002668 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 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.
15/318,244 12/12/2016 Rogier August Caspar Joseph Noldus 4015-9783 / P43088-US1 1033
24112 7590 07/22/2021
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
NAJI, YOUNES
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2021 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

Appeal 2020-002668
Application 15/318,244
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
The Examiner rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious.
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s
decision to reject the claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-002668
Application 15/318,244

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejected claims 24, 25, 27–34, 36, and 38–43 in the
Final Office Action as follows:
Claims 24, 25, 33, 36, and 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Gallant et al. (US 2002/0136206 A1, published Sept. 26, 2002)
(“Gallant”) and Linander (US 7,110,419 B1, issued Sept. 19, 2006)
(“Linander”). Final Act. 2–9.
Claims 27–30, 34, 38, 39, and 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in
view of Gallant, Linander, and Lau et al. (US 2014/0068710 A1, published
Mar. 6, 2014) (“Lau”). Final Act. 10–16.
Claims 31 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of
Gallant, Linander, Lau, and Montemurro et al. (US 2010/0142517 A1,
published June 10, 2010 (“Montemurro”). Final Act. 16–17.
Claim 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Gallant,
Linander, Lau, and Rosenberg et al. (“SIP: Session Initiation Protocol,” RFC
3261–June 2002) (“Rosenberg”). Final Act. 18–19.
Claim 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view of Gallant,
Linander, Lau, and Montemurro. Final Act. 19–20.
Independent claims 24 and 33 are representative and reproduced
below:
24. A method of controlling communication session
establishment in a multimedia over Internet Protocol (IP) based
communications network towards at least one multimedia User
Equipment (UE) of a plurality of multimedia UEs registered in
the communications network with a same subscriber, the
method comprising:
receiving, by a communications handling server of the
communications network, a request for establishing a
Appeal 2020-002668
Application 15/318,244

3
communication session with at least one UE of the plurality of
UEs;
providing, by the communications handling server and
responsive to the request, an adapted request for establishing
the communication session, the adapted request including a
restriction on a response permitted by the at least one UE in
reply to the request for establishing the communication session;
and
forwarding the adapted request, by the communications
handling server and in the communications network.

33. A method of controlling communication session
establishment in a multimedia User Equipment (UE) configured
to operate in a multimedia over Internet Protocol (IP) based
communications network, the method comprising:
receiving, by the UE, a request for establishing a
communication session, the request including a restriction on a
response permitted by the UE in reply to the request for
establishing a communication session;
processing, by the UE, the instruction included in the
request; and
transmitting, by the UE, a response in accordance with
the processed instruction included in the request.

REJECTION BASED ON GALLANT AND LINANDER
Claim 24 is directed to a method of controlling a multimedia
communication session over the internet with a multimedia user equipment.
The first step of claim 24 is receiving, by “a communications handling
server,” a request for a establishing a communication session with at least
one “multimedia User Equipment” (UE) “of a plurality of multimedia UEs
registered in the communications network with a same subscriber.” The
Specification discloses that the request can be from a “calling party” making
a call to a subscriber’s UE. Spec. 2–3.
Appeal 2020-002668
Application 15/318,244

4
Responsive to this request to establish a communication session, such
as making a video call to a subscriber, an “adapted request” is provided by
the server for establishing the session. The adapted request includes “a
response permitted by the at least one UE in reply to the request for
establishing the communication session.” The adaptive request, as explained
by the Specification, is a modified request which indicates which of the UEs
of the subscriber/called party is permitted to establish a communication
session (e.g., answer the video call) with the calling party. Spec. 14:1–13.
Because the claim recites that a response is permitted by “at least one UE,”
one UE or all the UEs of the subscriber/called party can answer the call. The
Specification explains2 that the adaptive response permits the called
party/subscriber to determine which of its devices it is reachable or available
at, for example, when the called party/subscriber is using a specific UE at a
meeting and does not want a call to come through the UE in use. Spec. 1:15–
2:25.
In the last step of the claim, the adapted request is forwarded. We
understand that the adapted request for a communication session is
forwarded to at least one or all of the UEs. See Spec. 14:15–25. Thus, at
least one or all of the UEs are restricted in whether they are permitted to
respond to the call or other communication session with a calling party.

2 “The adapted request may be based on communication capabilities by
which a UE is registered in the communications network and/or
communication information relating to the called subscriber. This
communication information is to be conceived to include information
relating to one or more of the geographic location of the subscriber, a
meeting schedule and/or agenda of the subscriber, availability of the
subscriber at particular point in time, and so on.” Spec. 5:16–21.
Appeal 2020-002668
Application 15/318,244

5
The Examiner cited Gallant for making a request for a communication
session with at least one UE of a plurality of UEs from the same subscriber
as in the first step of claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner found that Gallant
provides an “adapted request” as in claim 1, but not “including a restriction
on a response permitted by the at least one UE in reply to the request for
establishing the communication session” as recited in the claim. Final Act.
3–4. For this limitation, the Examiner cited Linander. Id. at 4. The Examiner
determined it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective date of the application to modify Gallant with
Linander’s teaching to reduce signal collisions as taught by Linander. Id.
Appellant contends that “[n]either Gallant nor Linander provide for a
restriction on a response to the request permitted by at least one of a
plurality of UEs owned by the same subscriber.” Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant
argues that “Linander prevents users from responding in any way to its
broadcast, selecting only certain users to have the ability to respond.
Gallant merely relates to communicating with one device at a time.” Id. at 7.
For this reason, Appellant contends that there would be no reason to
“reach[ ] out to every user device for a user so that the user can be contacted
through every means and have the maximum number of opportunities to
respond in the user's desired manner” as required by the “claimed
invention.” Id.
These arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 24 as obvious. To begin, Appellant’s interpretation of the
scope of claim 24 is not consistent with its actual recited language.
Appellant argues that the “claimed invention . . . reaches out to every user
device for a user so that the user can be contacted through every means and
Appeal 2020-002668
Application 15/318,244

6
have the maximum number of opportunities to respond in the user's desired
manner.” Appeal Br. 7. However, the claim recites “receiving . . . a request
for establishing a communication session with at least one UE of the
plurality of UEs.” Thus, the claim does not necessarily reach out to “every”
UE, but rather only requires a request to one of the subscriber’s UE devices.
Linander, as found by the Examiner, describes “reducing collisions of
signals occurring on at least one communication channel in an access
network” by “limiting the number of responses which may be transmitted at
specified times over the communication channel.” Linander 3:51–65.
Linander describes a dynamic filter which is used “to restrict the number of
responses to any given communication request message by allowing only
selected nodes respond to specific communication request messages.” Id.
4:5–10. As explained by Linander:
As multiple users increase to the thousands, contention
and collisions during sign-on can choke the network. The
technique of the present invention permits a back-off algorithm
to be employed to minimize contention, thereby enhancing the
robustness of the sign-on procedure.
According to specific embodiments, the present invention
provides a number of different techniques for preventing
collisions of Sign-On Response messages during times when
several NIUs are attempting to sign-on at the same time. As
described in greater detail below, one technique for reducing
collisions of Sign-On Response messages is to utilize
dynamically generated filer parameters, such as, for example,
address filter parameters, when transmitting selected Sign-On
Request messages to the NIUs to thereby restrict the number of
NIUs which are allowed to transmit Sig[n]-On Response
messages during specified Ranging slots.
Linander 5:26–42.
Appeal 2020-002668
Application 15/318,244

7
Linander does not “reduce responses [by users] to zero” as asserted by
Appellant. Reply Br. 3. Linander is simply restricting responses from user
devices at specific times to avoid collisions between sign-on messages, but
does not describe stopping responses from them altogether.
The question is whether it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art to have applied Linander’s disclosure about avoiding message
collisions to Gallant’s teaching of a single subscriber having multiple UEs to
render obvious the claim limitation of “providing . . . an adapted request for
establishing the communication session, the adapted request including a
restriction on a response permitted by the at least one UE in reply to the
request for establishing the communication session.”
The Examiner found it would have been obvious to restrict the
responses of the UEs of a single subscriber to avoid collisions when more
than one UE attempts to respond to a request for establishing
communication. Final Act. 4 (see first step of claim 24). Appellant does not
identify a deficiency in this reasoning. Appellant simply argues lack of
“motivation” because “the claimed invention reaches out to every user
device for a user so that the user can be contacted through every means and
have the maximum number of opportunities to respond in the user’s desired
manner,” contrary to what is allegedly described by Linander. Appeal Br. 6–
7. But Appellant in making this argument ignores the explicit claim
language that only certain UEs are restricted from responding to a
communication request in the same way expressly disclosed by Linander.
Appellant also argues that “Gallant only communicates with one
device at a time.” Reply Br. 3. We do not agree. Gallant is not limited to
responding to one user at a time, but also describes contacting a user at
Appeal 2020-002668
Application 15/318,244

8
different addresses in parallel.3 Therefore, when it is attempted in Gallant to
contact the different addresses of the same subscriber at the same time in
parallel as disclosed by Gallant, there is a possibility of message collisions
occurring. Linander provides a solution to this problem by restricting the
UE’s from all responding at once.
Accordingly, the rejection of claim 24 as obvious is affirmed.
Claim 36 is directed to a server for carrying out the same method as
claim 24. Appellant argues it together with claim 24. Appeal Br. 6–7. Claim
36 therefore falls with claim 24. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).

Claims 33, 41, and remaining claims and rejections
Independent claim 33 recites that a UE receives “a request for
establishing a communication session, the request including a restriction on
a response permitted by the UE in reply to the request for establishing a
communication session.”4 Thus, like claim 24, a response by a UE is
restricted. Claim 33 does not require “a plurality of multimedia UEs
registered in the communications network with a same subscriber” as recited
for claim 24, but only requires one UE.
Claim 41 is directed to a server for carrying out the same method
recited in claim 33. The Examiner rejected the claim for the same reasons as
for claim 24.

3 “Upon receipt of the address information from the location server, the
proxy server commences to send an ‘INVITE’ message, or the like, to each
address. Thus, the proxy server attempts to reach the second user by trying
the addresses either serially or in parallel.” Gallant ¶ 14. See also Gallant
¶ 81.
4 The claim also recites “processing, by the UE, the instruction included in
the request,” but the preceding step does not recite the term “instruction.”
Appeal 2020-002668
Application 15/318,244

9
The Examiner rejected the claims as obvious in view of Gallant and
Linander, determining that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been
prompted to limit a response to a request for a communication session to
avoid collisions with other UEs attempting to respond to the request as
described in Linander. Final Act. 6.
Appellant states that the “request with the restriction is a mirror to the
adapted request in claims 24 and 36” and, therefore, “for at least the reasons
as stated above with regard to claims 24 and 36, it is respectfully submitted
that claims 33 and 41 are also patentable over Gallant in view of Linander.”
Appeal Br. 8. Because no new argument is made, we affirm the rejection of
claims 33 and 41 is affirmed for the same reasons.
Appellant addressed the remaining claims and rejections under
separate headings, but argues that the additionally cited publications do not
described an adapted request or modified request invite.5 The Examiner’s
finding that this limitation is described by Linander, and in combination with
Gallant, makes all the independent claims obvious, is supported by a
preponderance of the evidence.6 Consequently, as summarized below, the

5 With respect to the rejection of claim 32, Appellant states that “[n]owhere
in Rosenberg is an invite request modified.” Appeal Br. 11. The term
“modified” does not appear in claim 32; we, therefore, understand the
argument to relate to the “adapted request” from which claim 32 indirectly
depends. The Examiner found that “adapted request” is described in
Linander, not Rosenberg. Final Act. 18–19.
6 In making the determination of whether a claim is obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, the Board applies the preponderance of the evidence
standard. Ethicon, Inc. v. Quigg, 849 F.2d 1422, 1427 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
(explaining the general evidentiary standard for proceedings before the
PTO).

Appeal 2020-002668
Application 15/318,244

10
obviousness rejections of the remaining claims are affirmed. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.37(c)(1)(iv).

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
24, 25, 33,
36, 41
103 Gallant, Linander 24, 25, 33,
36, 41

27–30, 34,
38, 39, 42
103 Gallant, Linander,
Lau
27–30, 34,
38, 39, 42

31, 43 103 Gallant, Linander,
Lau, Montemurro
31, 43
32 103 Gallant, Linander,
Lau, Rosenberg
32
40 103 Gallant, Linander,
Lau, Montemurro
40
Overall
Outcome
24, 25, 27–
34, 36, 38–
43

TIME PERIOD
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