Ex Parte Cheuk et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 201613409913 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/409,913 03/01/2012 25537 7590 07/05/2016 VERIZON PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP 1320 North Court House Road 9th Floor ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR HoYinCHEUK 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. 20110976 1099 EXAMINER DEAN, JR, JOSEPH E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/05/2016 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 HO YIN CHEUK and LIXIA YAN Appeal2015-000610 Application 13/409,913 1 Technology Center 2600 Before HUNG H. BUI, KEVIN C. TROCK, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. TROCK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-19. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 Appellants indicate the Real Party in Interest is Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. App. Br. 1. 2 Claims 10 and 20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim. Final Act. 7. The Examiner has indicated these claims would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Id. Appeal2015-000610 Application 13/409,913 Invention The claims are directed to a method and system to provide data usage status information to a mobile device. Abstract. Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method, comprising steps of: tracking, on at least one server, a data usage of a mobile device through a wireless packet data communication network; determining, from an account for the mobile device stored on the at least one server, a data usage criterion; comparing, on the at least one server, the data usage to the data usage criterion; and upon determining, based on the comparing, that the data usage has met the data usage criterion, sending a notification message of the data usage having met the data usage criterion from the at ieast one server to the mobiie device in reai time through an information element field within an existing message in a bearer channel of the wireless packet data communication network. Applied Prior Art Walter et al. US 2002/0022472 Al Feb.21,2002 Baek et al. US 2008/0107067 Al May 08, 2008 Pattabiraman US 2011/0151831 Al June 23, 2011 Ellis et al. US 2012/0278472 Al Nov. 01, 2012 2 Appeal2015-000610 Application 13/409,913 Rejections Claims 1--4, 7-9, 11-14, and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pattabiraman, Baek, and Ellis. Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Pattabiraman, Baek, Ellis, and Walter. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and the evidence of record in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' arguments and conclusions. We adopt as our own, ( 1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and further highlight specific findings and argument for emphasis as follows. Independent Claims 1 and 11 Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11 because the combination of Pattabiraman, Baek, and Ellis does not teach "sending a notification message of the data usage having met the data usage criterion ... through an information element field within an existing message in a bearer channel of the wireless packet data communication network," as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claim 11. App. Br. 4--10; Reply Br. 1-6. Appellants argue that Baek does not make up for the deficiencies of Pattabiraman, that 3 Appeal2015-000610 Application 13/409,913 Baek's router solicitation message is very different from a notification about data usage of a mobile device, that one skilled in the art would not use Baek to improve Pattabiraman's notification technique and such a combination would only result in allocating an IP address, and once allocated, providing a notification of data usage using Pattabiraman's technique. App. Br. 5---6. Appellants further argue that Ellis does not make up for the deficiencies of Pattabiraman and Baek, that it is unclear whether Ellis sends any notification to a mobile device, that the data field taught by Ellis is not the same as the claimed information element field, and that: the combination would result in allocating an IP address using Baek's method and, once allocated, providing the notification of data usage having met a data usage criterion in an SMS, as taught by both Pattabiraman and Ellis, instead of modifying the threshold notification to be provided in a PCO field or the like of a bearer channel message. App. Br. 6-7. Appellants also argue that the Examiner has failed to provide evidence to support the combination of the references in the manner recited in the claims. App. Br. 8-10. We disagree. One cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Here, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Pattabiraman is directed to a system that counts data usage in real time during the data session and sends a notification of reaching a threshold level of data usage to the mobile station in real time. Final Act. 2, 3; Ans. 2 (citing Pattabiraman, Abstract, Fig. 1, i-fi-1 18, 61, and 62 ). The Examiner relies on Baek to teach an information element field within an existing message in a bearer channel of the wireless 4 Appeal2015-000610 Application 13/409,913 packet data network. Final Act. 3, 4; Ans. 3-5 (citing Baek, i1i197, 98, 100). Ellis teaches associating the data usage criterion to the information element field. Final Act. 4; Ans. 3---6 (citing Ellis, i-f 72). The Examiner therefore finds, and we agree, the combination of Pattabiraman, Baek and Ellis teaches sending notifications reaching threshold levels of data usage and sending request and response messages or a notification of service via an information element field between a mobile device and Network/Server, and usage threshold field may indicate a percentage of a usage limit or other value at which a policy is applicable, which read on all the limitations of claims 1 and 11. Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds that the combination of Pattabiraman, Baek and Ellis provides an alternative method of informing mobile users of threshold usage levels such as SMS and/or through an information field and to provide reliable data services as well as charging subscribers accordingly, by identifying threshold levels via a threshold field and sending the threshold data to the mobile user. Ans. 8. The Examiner has provided some articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 11. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. Remaining Claims 2-9 and 12-19 Appellants have not presented separate, substantive, persuasive arguments with respect to remaining claims 2-9 and 12-19. See App. Br. 10. As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these 5 Appeal2015-000610 Application 13/409,913 claims. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("We conclude that the Board has reasonably interpreted Rule 41.3 7 to require applicants to articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately."). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2-9 and 12-19. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-9 and 11-19. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation