Ex Parte ARAMOTO et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 17, 2019

14263734 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/263,734 04/28/2014
127226 7590 06/19/2019
BIRCH, STEW ART, KOLASCH & BIRCH, LLP
8110 Gatehouse Road
Suite 100 East
Falls Church, VA 22042-1248
Masafumi ARAMOTO
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
l 152-0390PUS2 3208
EXAMINER
MATTIS, JASON E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2019 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):
mailroom@bskb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAFUMI ARAMOTO and HIROKAZU NAOE 1
Appeal 2018-007 448
Application 14/263,734
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1 through 8, 10, and 11, which
constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Sharp Kabushiki
Kaisha. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-007 448
Application 14/263,734
INVENTION
The invention is directed to "a mobile communication system or the
like provided with a first access network in which a bearer transfer path that
guarantees a predetermined QoS has been established and a second access
network in which a transfer path which is different from that in the first
access network has been established, including a control station, a mobile
station in which a path is set to perform a plurality of flows of
communication with the control station via a transfer path designated by an
access system type, and a QoS control station which controls the QoS."
Spec. pgs. 2-3.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
A mobile station apparatus comprising:
a control portion; and
a transmission/reception portion, wherein
the control portion is configured to:
establish a first communication path
connecting with a core network via a
first access network based on an
Access Point Name (APN), and
establish a second communication path
connecting with the core network via
a second access network based on the
APN, and
the transmission/reception portion is configured to:
transmit or receive a first flow and a second
flow by using the first communication path,
receive, from the core network, a control
message containing at least an identification
information of the first flow,
send, to the core network, a response control
message for the control message,
2
Appeal 2018-007 448
Application 14/263,734
after transmission of the response control
message, transmit or receive the first flow
by switching to use of the second
communication path based on the control
message, and maintain transmission or
reception of the second flow by using the
first communication path,
wherein the control message is the message
received in a procedure initiated by the core network, the
procedure being to change the communication path for
the first flow.
REJECTION AT ISSUE2
The Examiner has rejected claims 1 through 8, 10, and 11 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Giaretta (US 2009/0305701
Al, published December 10, 2009), Pitkamaki (US 2009/0156215 Al,
published June 18, 2009) and Matsunaga (US 2005/0249121 Al, published
November 10, 2005). Final Act. 5-15.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants'
arguments. Appellants' arguments have persuaded us of error in the
Examiner's obviousness rejection.
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed
September 15, 2017, the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 18, 2018, the
Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed January 20, 2017, and the
Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed May 18, 2018.
3
Appeal 2018-007 448
Application 14/263,734
Appellants argue, on pages 8 through 11 of the Appeal Brief and
pages 2 through 5 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 5, and 10 is in error. The dispositive issue presented
by Appellants' arguments is did the Examiner err in finding the combination
of the references teach establishing two communication paths, and having
two data flows on a first communication path, and after receipt of a control
message switching one of the data flows to the second communication path
where the control message is received in a procedure initiated by the core
network as recited in independent claims 1, 5, and 10.
The Examiner finds that Giaretta teaches establishing two
communication paths, two data flows and switching data flows between the
two paths. Final Act. 6, 7 (citing paragraphs 50, 51, 52, 55, 56, 60, 69--71,
Figs. 3, 4, 5, 10, and 11). Further, the Examiner states "Giaretta et al. does
disclose the rerouting of flows being initiated by the core network, Giaretta
et al. does not explicitly disclose the control message being received in a
procedure initiated by the core network to change the communication path
for the first flow" Final Act. 7. The Examiner cites to Pitkamaki as teaching
a control message received in a procedure initiated by a core network to
change a communication path. Final Act. 8 ( citing paragraphs 8, 49 and Fig.
la). The Examiner concludes the advantage of combining these teachings is
to "give greater control to the network over handover as well as allowing
switching to be accomplished in response to received messaging." Final
Act. 8. In response to Appellants' arguments the Examiner states "the
claims do not appear to include any specific limitation regarding the core
network not relying on a control message or trigger from a UE [ user
equipment]." Ans. 4. Further, the Examiner finds that while the Binding
4
Appeal 2018-007 448
Application 14/263,734
Update (BU), in Giaretta's system, is from the user equipment, the change in
flow routing is not necessarily initiated by the BU as other factors are
considered in the routing decision. Ans. 4--5. Additionally, the Examiner
states:
both Giaretta and Pitkamaki are related to a handover process, it
is believed that it would have been obvious to use similar
messaging within the system and method of Giaretta et al. to
inform the UE of changes in routing as determined by the
HA/PGW of Giaretta et al. Applicant argues that the handover
of Pitkamaki is an entirely different operation from that of
Giaretta et al. The Examiner disagrees. Both Giaretta et al. and
Pitkamaki are related to handover between access networks of
different types. Therefore, it is believed the teachings of
Pitkamaki are relevant to the system and method of Giaretta et
al., and that the combination would have been obvious.
Ans. 6.
We agree with the Examiner that Giaretta teaches two communication
paths with two data flows. However, we disagree with the Examiner's claim
interpretation that Giaretta's BU does not initiate the change in routing as
other factors are considered. While the BU may not always result in a
change in routing as other factors are considered, the Examiner has not
shown, nor do we find, that the other factors initiate the change in routing
independent of the BU. Thus, we concur with the Appellants' argument on
pages 9 and 10 of the Appeal Brief, that the Examiner has not shown that in
Giaretta, the BU which is sent by the UE, not the core network as claimed,
initiates the procedure to change the flow from one path to another.
We also concur with Appellants' arguments that Pitkamaki is directed
to a different type of handover and accomplishes a different purpose and as
such may not be readily combined with Giaretta. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br.
5
Appeal 2018-007 448
Application 14/263,734
5. Pitkamaki does teach changing from one communication path to another,
a handoff from one network to another, which can be initiated by either the
core network or the user equipment. However, the handover in Pitkamaki
differs from the handover/rerouting in Giaretta and in the claims. In
Pitkamaki, the handover is not between established communication paths or
transferring an existing data flow on one established path to another
established path, rather the initiation of the handover is to a new
communication path, which can support a new request. Pitkamaki
(paragraphs 8, 91, and 95). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 5, and 10, or the claims
which depend upon these claims.
DECISION
We reverse the decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 8,
10, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
6