Ex Parte Dahlin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2016

11913749 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111913,749 11/06/2007
132398 7590 05/17/2016
Clairvolex Inc,
4010 MOORPARK AVE, Ste, 228
San Jose, CA 95117
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steinar Dahlin
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.
P20489 USl 8654
EXAMINER
CAI, WAYNE HUU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712016 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):
elofdocket@clairvolex.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEINAR DAHLIN, ROBERT SKOG, and ULF OLSSON
Appeal2013-008145
Application 11/913, 7 49
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ERIC B. CHEN, and ANDREW J. DILLON,
Administrative Patent Judges.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 18-31. Claims 1-17 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to arrangements adapted for
implementation in a Session Initiated Protocol (SIP) provider domain in IP
multimedia systems (IMS) for managing SIP user identities wherein each
SIP user is identified by a SIP URI. See Abstract.
Appeal2013-008145
Application 11/913,749
Claim 18 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
18. Apparatus for implementation in a Session Initiated Protocol, SIP,
operator domain in IP multimedia Subsystem, IMS, for managing SIP user
identities wherein each SIP user is identified by a SIP URI, the apparatus
compnsmg:
a database (DDB) adapted to store and publish at least one identifier selected
by the user, wherein the database (DDB) is accessible to a content manager
(DCM), adapted to associate the at least one selected identifier with the SIP
URI of the user;
the content manager (DCM) further adapted to request the database (DDB)
to store the at least one selected identifier and the association between the at
least one selected identifier and the SIP URI;
a search engine (DSE), adapted to search for a SIP URI in the database
(DDB) via the associated published selected identifier and to act as an
interface between different SIP operator domains and adapted to forward a
search request to search engines of different SIP domain operators via the
interface; and
the search engine (DSE) is further adapted to add, to the search request, a
list comprising SIP operators that have already received the search request,
or to create a unique search identifier for identifying the search request so
that a network receiving the search request can recognize the search
requests and discard identical search requests.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Shorter et al.
Gallant
Grabelsky et al.
Kakivaya et al.
Jiang et al.
Beckmann et al.
Poikselka et al.
us 5,946,680
US 2002/0165969 Al
US 2004/0249951 Al
US 2004/0267876 Al
US 2005/0097222 Al
US 2005/0131989 Al
US 2006/0053225 Al
THE REJECTIONS
2
Aug.31, 1999
Nov. 7, 2002
Dec. 9, 2004
Dec. 30, 2004
May 5, 2005
June 16, 2005
Mar. 9, 2006
Appeal2013-008145
Application 11/913,749
1. The Examiner rejected claims 18-22 and 25 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 (a) as unpatentable over Jiang, Gallant and Kakivaya. Final
Act. 3-7. 1
2. The Examiner rejected claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jiang, Gallant, Kakivaya and Poikselka. Final
Act. 7-8.
3. The Examiner rejected claims 24, 28, 29, and 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jiang, Gallant, Kakivaya, and
Beckmann. Final Act. 8-10.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 27 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Jiang, Gallant, Kakivaya, and Grabelsky.
Final Act. 11-12.
5. The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jiang, Gallant, Kakivaya and Shorter. Final Act.
12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions (App. Br. 5-10, Reply Br. 1---6) that the Examiner has erred. We
have also reviewed the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 3-12), and (2) the reasons
set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 3--4). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references as follows.
Regarding claims 18, 19, 21, 22, and 25, Appellants argue the
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Examiner's Final Action mailed
July 20, 2012, the Appeal Brief filed March 26, 2013, the Examiner's
Answer mailed April 10, 2013, and the Reply Brief filed June 10, 2013.
3
Appeal2013-008145
Application 11/913,749
Examiner erred in view of the failure of the cited references, and Jiang in
particular, to show or suggest a content manager which requests that the
database store both a selected identifier and an association between that
selected identifier and a SIP URI. App. Br. 6-7, Reply Br. 1-2.
The Examiner finds that Fig. 2 of Jiang discloses an SIP URI, such as
identifiers, such as: "webmaster bob," "a telephone number," or a "name
mapper." The Examiner finds that this discloses a database which stores an
identifier and an associated SIP URI. Ans. 3.
We find the Examiner's position reasonable. Jiang clearly discloses,
within Figure 2, a database which stores various identifiers in association
with an SIP URI, and Appellants have failed to provide any argument why
this interpretation is erroneous.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner's position fails to suggest that
the content manager "requests" such storage. App. Br. 6-7, Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner responds by taking the position that a "request" is
implicit because "databases don't generate themselves." Ans. 3.
We concur with the Examiner. Appellants' arguments regarding the
lack of an express teaching of a "request" to store the SIP URI and the
associated identifiers fails to address the underlying fact that those
identifiers and the SIP URI were, in fact, somehow stored within the
mapping database depicted in Fig. 2 of Jiang.
Finally, Appellants argue that the cited references fail to show or
suggest the creation of a unique search identifier for identifying a search
request so that the search request can be identified in order to discard
identical search requests. App. Br. 7, Reply Br. 2-3.
The Examiner points out that Kakivaya discloses checking message
4
Appeal2013-008145
Application 11/913,749
identifiers and discarding a message if that message identifier is already
present. Ans. 3--4.
In reply, Appellants argue that Kakivaya teaches discarding of
duplicates with regard to SOAP messages, rather than duplicate SIP URI
messages. Reply Br. 3.
We find Appellants' arguments unavailing. The Examiner's rejection
was based upon obviousness, and consequently our review is based upon
what such a reference would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. We
find that Kakivaya fairly suggests in Paragraph 7 that it was well known in
the art at the time of the invention that duplicate requests (of whatever ilk)
should be discarded. We therefore find no error in the Examiner's position.
With regard to claim 20, Appellants argue that the cited references fail
to show or suggest checking that a selected identifier is unique across the
users of an operator. App. Br. 7-8, Reply Br. 4--5.
The Examiner finds that Jiang discloses a "unique identifier" and
consequently some amount of checking must take place. Further, the
Examiner points out that Gallant discloses checking in a table of an operator
to determine if a user ID is unique. Ans. 4.
In reply, Appellants argue that Gallant merely discloses checking for a
unique identifier only within SUBIDs in a particular User Profile Table.
Reply Br. 4.
Once again, we disagree with Appellants. For obviousness, the cited
references need only suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that checking
for uniqueness of an identifier within some domain was known in the art.
Here, we find that the Examiner's citation of Jiang and Gallant both
suggest that checking a user ID for uniqueness within some domain was well
within the ambit of one of ordinary skill in the art.
5
Appeal2013-008145
Application 11/913,749
Regarding claim 23, Appellants argue that the cited prior art fails to
show or suggest a system which communicates to the user that the SIP URI
of said user "may be revealed to other users." App. Br. 9-10, Reply Br. 5-6.
The Examiner finds that Poikselka discloses that a directory is
published where the users URI may be published to other users. Ans. 4.
Given the permissive nature of Appellants' claim language ("may be
revealed") we find that the publication of a directory of Poikselka ,which
includes URis meets this limitation, in the absence of language which states
that such a directory would be held securely. We therefore find no error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 23.
In the absence of separate arguments regarding claims 24 and 26-31
we find no error in the Examiner's rejection of those claims.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 18-31 is 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6