United States Cellular Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 1, 2020

13908669 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 1, 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.
13/908,669 06/03/2013 Sebastian Thalanany 278340 4970
23460 7590 06/01/2020
LEYDIG VOIT & MAYER, LTD
TWO PRUDENTIAL PLAZA, SUITE 4900
180 NORTH STETSON AVENUE
CHICAGO, IL 60601-6731
EXAMINER
KASSIM, KHALED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/01/2020 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):
Chgpatent@leydig.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SEBASTIAN THALANANY, CLAUDIO TAGLIENTI,
MICHAEL SHANNON IRIZARRY, and NAROTHUM SAXENA

Appeal 2019-000290
Application 13/908,669
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JUSTIN BUSCH, and JAMES W. DEJMEK,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12, which are all the claims pending.
Oral arguments were heard on May 19, 2020. 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United States
Cellular Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000290
Application 13/908,669

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claimed subject matter “relates to control of the authorization of
multimedia services utilizing the connectivity resources provided by the
access network.” Spec. ¶ 1; see Spec. ¶¶ 6–10, Abstract. The claimed
invention filters bearer level resource authorization based on the access
network’s identity and filters the multimedia service authorization based on
the multimedia service’s identity. Spec. ¶ 14. Claims 1, 5, and 9 are
independent claims, and illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for controlling authorization of a requested
multimedia service requested by a user device comprising:
examining, via a Session Initialization Protocol (SIP)
Proxy server of a core network, an identity of an access network
associated with the user device and an identity of the requested
multimedia service;
determining, via the SIP Proxy server, whether the
requested multimedia service is supported by the access network
by:
(a) filtering bearer level resource authorization
based on the identity of the access network; and
(b) filtering the multimedia service authorization
based on the identity of the requested multimedia service;
authorizing, via the SIP Proxy server, resources in the
access network required by the multimedia service requested by
the user device if the multimedia service is supported as
determined during the determining; and otherwise
rejecting, via the SIP Proxy server., the multimedia service
requested by the user device if the multimedia service is not
supported as determined during the determining.
Appeal 2019-000290
Application 13/908,669

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–12 stand rejected for obviousness-type double patenting
over claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,109. Final Act. 2–3.2
Claims 1–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious in view
of Widegren (US 2003/0172160 A1; Sept. 11, 2003), Malinen (US
2005/0078824 A1; Apr. 14, 2005), and Mueller (US 2005/0027867 A1;
Feb. 3, 2005). Final Act. 4–14.
OPINION
DOUBLE-PATENTING REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–12 for obviousness-type double
patenting over claims 1–4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,457,109. Final Act. 2–3.
Appellant does not contest this rejection, and Appellant has not filed a
Terminal Disclaimer.
To the extent Appellant has not advanced separate, substantive
arguments for particular claims or issues, such arguments are considered
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv); see also Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d
1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“When the appellant fails to contest a ground
of rejection to the Board, . . . the Board may treat any argument with respect
to that ground of rejection as waived.”). Additionally, “[i]f a ground of
rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief,
appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board
may summarily sustain it unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the
rejection in the examiner’s answer.” Manual of Patent Examining Procedure

2 The Examiner incorrectly states that the obviousness-type double patenting
rejection is provisional even though the Examiner identifies an issued patent,
not a patent application. We deem this error harmless.
Appeal 2019-000290
Application 13/908,669

4
(“MPEP”) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Rev. 08.2017, Jan. 2018). Accordingly, we
summarily sustain this rejection.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION
The Examiner rejects claims 1–12 as obvious in view of Widegren,
Malinen, and Mueller. Final Act. 4–14. Of particular relevance to this
appeal, the Examiner finds Widegren teaches or suggests “examining . . . an
identity of an access network associated with the user device and an identity
of the requested multimedia service” and “determining . . . whether the
requested multimedia service is supported by the access network by . . .
(a) filtering bearer level resource authorization . . . and (b) filtering the
multimedia service authorization based on the multimedia service identity.”
Final Act. 4–5.
The Examiner finds Widegren fails to explicitly disclose that the
network information Widegren transmits is “the identity of the access
network type,” but finds Malinen discloses providing the identity of the
access network type. Final Act. 4 (citing Malinen ¶ 55, Abstract). The
Examiner finds that the broadest reasonable interpretation of the recited
“identity of the access network” encompasses an identity of a network type.
Ans. 6. The Examiner finds the Specification supports this construction.
Ans. 6 (citing Spec. ¶ 233). The Examiner further finds Widegren discloses
receiving a service request including various parameters (e.g., type of
service, type of media, and Quality of Service (QoS)), and determining (1)

3 All of our references to the Specification refer to the originally filed
Specification. The Examiner’s citation refers to paragraph 42 of the printed
publication.
Appeal 2019-000290
Application 13/908,669

5
whether a network entity supports the requested service and (2) whether the
required resources are available. Ans. 6 (citing Widegren ¶¶ 29, 74, 91).
Appellant agrees that Malinen teaches an access network type.
However, among other arguments, Appellant asserts that Malinen’s access
network type does not teach or suggest the recited identity of the access
network. Appeal Br. 11; Reply Br. 5. Appellant notes the Examiner alters
the claim language to find that Malinen teaches the “identity of the access
network type,” rather than the recited “identity of the access network.”
Appeal Br. 11. Appellant argues equating the identity of the access network
to the type (or “identity of the access network type”) of the access network is
improper, unreasonably broadens the scope of the claims, and ignores the
explicit and literal meaning of the recited “identity of the access network.”
Reply Br. 5.
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to controlling the authorization
of multimedia services provided by access networks by filtering bearer level
resource authorization and multimedia service authorization based on the
based on the access network’s and multimedia service’s identities. Spec.
¶¶ 1, 6–10. In particular, a SIP (Session Initialization Protocol) proxy server
evaluates the access network’s identity and the requested multimedia
service’s identity “and compares this information with other information
from a database associated with the HSS [(Home Subscriber Server)] to
determine whether the access network 140 supports the requested service.”
Spec. ¶ 23.
Contrary to the Examiner’s finding that the Specification equates a
network identity and a network type, the Specification states that the SIP
proxy server “examines the access network identity (or other information
Appeal 2019-000290
Application 13/908,669

6
relating to the access network type).” Spec. ¶ 23. Although the
Specification discloses a SIP proxy sever using information other than the
network identity, such as “other information relating to the access network
type,” this statement does not equate the network identity and type. Rather,
this disclosure merely indicates the network identity is one example of
information that relates to the access network type.
The claims determine whether the particular access network supports
the requested service by, in part, filtering the bearer level resources based on
the identity of the particular access network. The Specification explains that,
if the access network supports the requested service, then the Policy
Function “translates the QoS constraints associated with the IP [(Internet
Protocol)] multimedia service into the bearer level QoS parameters.” Spec.
¶ 24. “Policy definitions for different access networks and technologies can
be used to determine whether or not the bearer level resources are allocated
by the AGW [(Access Gateway)] 114 and, if the resources are allocated, the
corresponding QoS treatment.” Spec. ¶ 26 (emphasis added).
In contrast, Malinen teaches obtaining information regarding the type
of access network so that a mobile device can authenticate through different
types of networks. Malinen ¶ 9. Specifically, a mobile device receives a
router advertisement that indicates the access network type, determines the
access network type from the advertisement, and encapsulates a message
using a protocol compatible with the determined network type. Malinen
¶ 55. Malinen does not need to know the identity of the particular access
network because, in order to encapsulate its message, Malinen only needs
information regarding the type of network.
Appeal 2019-000290
Application 13/908,669

7
Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to reverse the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 9, each of which recites
determining whether an access network supports a multimedia service is by,
among other things, filtering bearer level resource authorization based on the
identity of the access network. Claims 2–4, 6–8, and 10–12 depend from
one of independent claims 1, 5, and 9 and incorporate the same determining
step. Therefore, we are also constrained to reverse the Examiner’s rejection
of these claims on this record.
DECISION SUMMARY
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Basis/References Affirmed Reversed
1–12 Obviousness-type Double Patenting 1–12
1–12 103 Widegren, Malinen, Mueller 1–12
Overall
Outcome 1–12

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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).
AFFIRMED