Ex Parte Anttila et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 29, 2013

10297333 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ILKKA ANTTILA, TOIVO KIHLANKI, and
IIPO PALTEMAA
____________________

Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
JOHN A. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
11-31. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). An oral hearing was
scheduled for April 9, 2013, but was waived in a paper filed Feb. 14, 2013.
Therefore, we decide the appeal on the Briefs.

We affirm.

The claims are directed to management of subscriber data in mobile
system. Claim 11, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed
subject matter:
11. A mobile system, comprising:

a mobile network comprising

a mobile services switching center configured to switch
connections in the mobile network, and

at least one subscriber database server configured to maintain
data on the subscribers of the mobile network,

wherein the mobile services switching center is configured to
query for and receive subscriber data from the subscriber
database server wherein subscriber data is maintained in world
wide web page format, said mobile services switching center
using a world wide web address as a search address when
querying for said subscriber data, and

wherein the subscriber database server comprises at least one
world wide web page for each subscriber in the mobile
network, in which page the subscriber's subscriber data is
stored, the search address of the world wide web page being
based on the subscriber's identity, wherein the query of the
mobile services switching center is initiated by the mobile
Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
3
services switching center and wherein subscriber data
comprises data used by the mobile services switching center for
different mobile services switching center functions, including
a mobile network call control function.

REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Hunt
Elliott
Krishnamurthy
Whalen
Waites
US 6,253,234 B1
US 6,473,097 B1
US 6,578,113 B2
US 6,615,267 B1
US 6,788,769 B1
Jun. 26, 2001
Oct. 29, 2002
Jun. 10, 2003
Sep. 2, 2003
Sep. 7, 2004

REJECTIONS
Claims 11-14, 25, 26, 30, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C
§103(a) as being unpatentable over Elliott and Waites.
Claims 17 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elliott, Waites, and Krishnamurthy.
Claims 19, 20, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Elliott, Waites, Krishnamurthy, and Whalen.
Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Elliott, Waites, and Hunt.
Claims 15, 16, 18, 22, 27, and 28 were objected to as being dependent
upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in
independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any
intervening claims. (Ans. 2; Final Rej. 8).

Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
4

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 11, 13, 14, 25, 26, 30, and 31,
Appellants set forth separate headings for these claims, but the arguments
presented rely upon the same base arguments presented with respect to
independent claim 11. Therefore, we will address Appellants' arguments
with respect to representative independent claim 11. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).

Appellants' general contention is that the combination of the Elliott
reference and the Waites reference fails to disclose or suggest all the
elements of any of the presently pending claims. (App. Br. 22).
Appellants maintain that "Elliot[t] fails to disclose (or suggest) a
subscriber database server for maintaining data on subscribers in world wide
web page format, or that the search address of the world wide web page is
created based on the subscriber's identity" (App. Br. 22).
The Examiner maintains that "[s]ome of the arguments are addressed
to portions or elements of the claims, already considered by both an
[E]xaminer in the [E]xaminer's answer and the Board in the decision
rendered 5/1/09. Therefore these arguments are rendered moot." (Ans. 10).
The Examiner maintains that res judicata is in effect to arguments that were
argued in the previous appeal. (Ans. 10-11). Appellants do not respond to
the Examiner's position in the Reply Brief. We agree with the Examiner and
adopt the findings of fact as previously addressed by the Board.
Appellants maintain that the Waites reference "makes no mention of a
mobile switching center (MSC)" and the Waites reference does not disclose
that any query is "initiated" by a mobile services switching center. (App. Br.
Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
5
24, emphasis omitted). We agree with Appellants, but the Examiner has
relied upon the Elliott reference for the teaching of a mobile switching
center. Therefore, Appellants' argument does not show error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Regarding the amended claim language for claim 11, Appellants
contend that any "query" in the Waites reference is not analogous to the
query claimed in claim 11. (App. Br. 25). Appellants further contend that
the users in the Waites reference are not disclosed to be subscribers of a
mobile network that comprises a "mobile services switching center
configured to switch connections in the mobile network", and that also
comprises "at least one subscriber database server configured to maintain
data on the subscribers of the mobile network". (App. Br. 25-26). While we
agree with Appellants, the Examiner has relied upon the Elliott reference to
teach and suggest the mobile services switching center and where the users
may be given labels as "subscribers". Therefore, Appellants' argument does
not address the combined teachings of the prior art references as applied by
the Examiner. Therefore, Appellants' argument does not show error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness.
Appellants contend that any MSC in the Waites reference that may
form a part of the PSTN 124 is simply acting in a conventional manner and
is not "configured to query…" as recited in independent claim 11. (App. Br.
26). Appellants further contend that there is no disclosure in the Waites
reference of a "mobile network" that comprises "a subscriber database server
configured to maintain data on the subscribers of the mobile network" (App.
Br. 26). Appellants contend that the computer system 102 of the Waites
reference does not comprise part of a mobile network, and is not described
Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
6
as containing any subscriber data of a type that would be queried by a MSC
of a mobile network. (App. Br. 26).
The Examiner maintains:
the MSC queries itself (the directory service) within the server
102 for said subscriber's subscriber information, the next step is
mapping the information to the features of Waites. After
querying is performed, subscriber data comprises data used by
the mobile services switching center for different mobile
services switching center functions see col. 9, lines 8-11: "the
directory service may determine which communication methods
are enabled by the second user or callee. For example the
directory service may access the second user's web site to
determine which communication methods are enabled by the
second user."

This clearly shows that a query with a telephone number
resolves itself to a webpage. The webpage of the receiving
party dictates network call control functions (such as email me,
call here, or limited access). The examiner again repeats that the
MSC is taught in Elliot[t]. The functionality and features of the
directory service of the server in Waites is simply substituted or
added to Elliot[t]. The combination teaches the invention.

(Ans. 14). We agree with the Examiner and find that the Appellants'
arguments are directed to the references individually where a portion of the
asserted limitation is taught by each of the separate references. Therefore,
Appellants' arguments do not address the combination as set forth by the
Examiner and are not persuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness.
Appellants maintain similar arguments on pages 27-31 of the Appeal
Brief. Appellants argue the claim limitations to the individual portions of
the references, but Appellants do not consider the rejection of the claim
limitations as it is maintained/parsed by the Examiner. Therefore,
Appellants' arguments do not address the combination as set forth by the
Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
7
Examiner and are not persuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness.
Additionally, Appellants identify "exemplary embodiments of
the invention" and attempt to distinguish the Elliott reference and the
Waites reference. (App. Br. 30). Appellants' argument is not
commensurate in scope with the express language of independent
claim 11 and therefore does not show error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness.
With respect to independent claim 11, Appellants specifically
identify the express language of claim 11 and maintain that the cited
portions of the Waites reference describe a directory system that can
be searched using a user's telephone number. Appellants maintain
that the cited portions of the Waites reference do not disclose or
suggest a mobile switching center using a World Wide Web address
as a search address when querying the subscriber data. (App. Br. 32).
Again, Appellants argue portions of the reference which the Examiner
has relied upon the other reference for a portion of the limitation.
Therefore, Appellants' argument does not show error in the
Examiner's conclusion of obviousness of independent claim 11.
Appellants contend that the Waites reference automatically resolve a
telephone number into a webpage address or e-mail address based
upon an entered telephone number, but this teaching does not remedy
the deficiency in the Elliott reference. (App. Br. 32). We disagree
with Appellants' contention as discussed above.
Appellants maintain the Waites reference does not disclose that
any query is "initiated" by a mobile services switching center and that
there is no mention of a mobile switching center in the Waites
Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
8
reference. (App. Br. 32-33). As discussed above, we find Appellants'
argument unavailing.
Appellants contend that the exemplary embodiments of the
claimed invention referred to the “use of a web address, based on a
subscriber identifier [sic, identity], when querying for subscriber
data." (App. Br. 33). Appellants contend that "no database is queried
based on a webpage address" in the Waites reference. (App. Br. 33).
Appellants contend that there is no indication that the created home
page address would be used as a search address and that the
searchable key, user’s telephone number in the Waites reference at
column 8 is not used as a search address. (App. Br. 33). We disagree
with Appellants and find that the telephone number would be a
subscriber identity or identifier and the portion of the telephone
number is clearly identified as being useful as a portion of the various
searchable indices which make the system more user-friendly.
Appellants further contend that the "subscriber data" comprises
data "used by the mobile services switching center for different
mobile services switching center functions, including a mobile
network call control function" (App. Br. 34). The Examiner has
maintained that Appellants have taken an unfair narrow view of the
term "data" and the Waites reference at column 9, lines 8-11, teach
that the directory service may determine which communication
methods are enabled by the second user or callee. The Examiner
further maintains that the control is shown by how the communication
methods are to establish to the callee or second user through this data.
(Ans. 14). We agree with the Examiner that the Waites reference does
identify some data which is used to control a mobile network call
Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
9
control function (when in combination with the mobile switching
center of the Elliott reference). Therefore, we find Appellants'
argument unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's conclusion of
obviousness.
With respect to independent claims 13, 14, 25, 26, 30, and 31,
Appellants repeat the language of each claim, assert that the reasons
set forth above with respect to independent claim 11 also are the
rationale for the proffered distinction and then repeats the similar
arguments which we found unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness. (App. Br. 34-46). Therefore, we find
Appellants' arguments to be unavailing, and we sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 13, 14, 25, 26, 30, and 31.
With respect to dependent claim 12 Appellants rely on the arguments
advanced with respect to independent claim 11 and additionally disagree
with the Examiner's assertion of "official notice". (App. Br. 46-47).
Appellants merely restate the Examiner's position and maintain that the
Examiner has not provided any supporting evidence for this assertion of
"official notice". We find Appellants' restatement of the Examiner's position
to be insufficient to be an affirmative challenge to the Examiner's taking of
"official notice".
We find that Appellants have not properly traversed the Examiner's
taking of Official Notice (see MPEP 2144.03 C) and therefore the Examiner
does not necessarily have to provide extrinsic evidence to support this taking
of Official Notice. Additionally, we find that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide an
intermediary cache/buffer with which to temporarily buffer transmission
Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
10
data between the mobile switching center and the main data server.
Moreover, we find that it was commonplace for Internet service providers to
perform switching and buffering of data or for a user terminal to maintain
cache copies of webpages for improved response time which would meet the
language of dependent claim 12.
With respect to independent claims 17 and 21, Appellants set forth
similar arguments with respect to the Elliott reference and the Waites
reference and maintain that the Krishnamurthy reference does not cure the
noted deficiencies. (App. Br. 47-53). Since we found Appellants'
arguments unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 11, we similarly
find them unpersuasive with respect to independent claim 17 and 21.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 17 and 21.
With respect to dependent claims 19, 20, 23, and 24, Appellants rely
upon the arguments advanced with respect to claims 17 and 21 and maintain
that the Whalen reference does not rectify the shortfalls described with
respect to the base combination. Since we found no error in the base
combination, we similarly find Appellants' argument unavailing with respect
to the pending claims. We sustain the rejection of claims 19, 20, 23, and 24.
With respect to independent claim 29, Appellants set forth similar
arguments with respect to the Elliott reference and the Waites reference and
maintains that the Hunt reference does not cure the deficiencies. (App. Br.
54-57). Since we found no error in the base combination, we similarly find
Appellants' argument unavailing with respect to claim 29. We sustain the
rejection of claim 29.
Appeal 2011-006071
Application 10/297,333
11
Appellants' Reply Brief sets forth similar arguments advanced in the
appeal brief which we found unpersuasive of error in the Examiner's
conclusion of obviousness. (Reply Br. 9-23).

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 11-31 under 35 U.S.C.
§103.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 11-31 are
affirmed.

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

tkl