Ex Parte Barth et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2018

14497421 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/497,421 09/26/2014
25537 7590 08/28/2018
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Craig A. Barth
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.
20141060 3295
EXAMINER
BOOK, PHYLLIS A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/28/2018 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRAIG A. BARTH and SETHUMADHA V BENDI
Appeal2018-005069
Application 14/497 ,421
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2018-005069
Application 14/497 ,421
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection
of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows ( emphasis added):
1. A method comprising:
receiving, by a network device, registration
information during a registration with a network, wherein
the registration information includes a user identifier of
a user registering with another network device of the
network and an identifier of the other network device,
wherein the network device is one of a Home Subscriber
Server (HSS), a Home Location Register (HLR), or a
User Profile Server Function (UPSF), and the other
network device is a serving-call session control function
(S-CSCF);
determining, by the network device, whether
registration information pertaining to a previous
registration by the user with the network is stored;
determining, by the network device, that the
registration information pertaining to the previous
registration is not stored;
storing, by the network device, the received
registration information based on determining that the
registration information pertaining to the previous
registration is not stored;
selecting, by the network device, which application
server of the network to transmit the received
registration information; and
2
Appeal2018-005069
Application 14/497 ,421
transmitting, by the network device, the received
registration information to the application server based
on the selecting.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1--4, 7, 9-12, and 15-18 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal et al.
(US 2012/0244861 Al; published Sept. 27, 2012) and Atarius et al.
(US 2010/0197305 Al; published Aug. 5, 2010). 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 13, 14, 19, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Agarwal, Atarius, and Peng
(US 2001/0052052 Al; published Dec. 13, 2001).
3. The Examiner rejected claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Agarwal, Atarius, and Torres (US 2009/0011763 Al;
published Jan. 8, 2009).
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because:
1 Appellants' arguments for independent claims 9 and 16 are substantially
similar to the arguments for claim 1. See App. Br. 16. Further, the
patentability of claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-20 is not separately argued from
that of claims 1, 9, and 16. See App. Br. 15-18. Thus, except for our
ultimate decision, claims 2-20 are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2018-005069
Application 14/497 ,421
Agarwal does not describe or suggest "selecting . . . which
application server of the network to transmit the received
registration information," as recited in independent claim 1 ....
Rather, as argued by the Examiner and described in Agarwal, the
location information can be served to other network components
to provide location based services including emergency services
as well as traffic advisories, transit advisories, and restaurant
information. . . . The location information, however, does not
describe or suggest the "received registration information" that
includes "a user identifier of a user" and "an identifier of the
other network device" that is "a serving-call control function
(S-CSCF)," as recited in independent claim 1.
Agarwal does not describe or suggest "selecting, by the network
device, which application server of the network to transmit the
received registration information," as recited in independent
claim 1. . . . While Agarwal describes that the "location
information can be served to other network components" ... ,
Agarwal does not describe or suggest that the HSS of Agarwal
is "selecting . .. which application server." Rather, for example,
as described in ,r 46 of Agarwal and illustrated in Fig. 7, the E-
CSCF /SIP-AS contacts the LRF/HSS 720 with a public URI 728
to obtain emergency service query key (ESQK) and/or location
information and routing information 730, and the E-CSCF/SIP-
AS 718 uses this information to select the closest PSAP 722.
Atarius describes that "the I-CSCF 242 may forward the
registration information to the S-CSCF 244." ... "The S-CSCF
244 may communicate with the backbone network 230 ... to
access an application server." ... In view of this fact, Atarius
does not suggest, much less describe, that the HSS is
transmitting any information to the application server, much
less, the "received registration information" to the application
server. Additionally, Atarius describes that the S-CSCF 244
communicates with the application server requested by the UE
104 .... In view of this additional fact, Atari us does not
suggest, much less describe that the transmitting is "based on
4
Appeal2018-005069
Application 14/497 ,421
the selecting" by the HSS. Further, for the reasons explained
supra, the Appellant has established that Agarwal does not cure
this deficiency. That is, the combination of Agarwal and Atarius
does not disclose or suggest the "selecting" recitation.
App. Br. 11-13 (Appellants' emphasis omitted; panel's emphasis added);
see also Reply Br. 4--9. 2
This argument is persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that
Agarwal teaches both a gateway that selects an application server local to a
mobile node to provide local services, and a home subscriber server (e.g.,
HSS 620) that caches registration information once a mobile node has
registered with a communication network. See Ans. 9 ( citing Agarwal
,r,r 29, 45).
Further, we agree with the Examiner that Atarius teaches that a home
subscriber server (e.g., HSS 238) verifies registration information received
by an interrogating-call session control function (e.g., I-CSCF 242), where
the interrogating-call session control function subsequently forwards the
registration information to a serving-call control function (e.g., S-CSCF
244), and where the serving-call control function subsequently accesses an
application server. See Ans. 12 ( citing Atarius ,r,r 39, 40).
However, on this record, the Examiner has not established that
Agarwal or Atarius, either individually or in combination with the other
cited references, teaches that the home subscriber server both
( 1) selects an application server in order to transmit received
registration information including
(a) a user identifier and
2 These contentions are determinative as to the rejections on appeal.
Therefore, Appellants' other contentions are not discussed herein.
5
Appeal2018-005069
Application 14/497 ,421
(b) a serving-call control function (S-CSCF) identifier, and
(2) transmits the received registration information to the application
server based on the selecting.
Accordingly, Appellants have shown the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-20 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
(2) On this record, claims 1-20 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
REVERSED
6