Ex Parte Draznin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 19, 2016

12979111 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/979, 111 12/27/2010
25537 7590 08/23/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sagiv DRAZNIN
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.
20100732 2459
EXAMINER
BELETE, BERHANU D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2016 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 SAGIV DRAZNIN, STEVEN R. RADOS,
LALIT R. KOTECHA, VIKRAM K. RAW AT,
PATRICIA RUEY-JANE CHANG, and YEE SIN CHAN
Appeal2015-002062
Application 12/979,111
Technology Center 2400
Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-002062
Application 12/979,111
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to methods and devices for low
latency call transfer. (Spec. i-f 10.) Claim 9, reproduced below, is illustrative
of the claimed subject matter:
9. A network device comprising:
a memory to store a plurality of access point names (APNs) and
information associated with a plurality of user devices that are served
by the network device, where each APN, of the plurality of APNs,
corresponds to a respective application, service, or type of traffic to be
processed by the network device; and
a processor to:
receive, from a first user device, traffic that is destined for a
second user device,
determine whether the traffic is voice traffic based on whether a
particular APN, that corresponds to the traffic, matches at least one
APN, of the plurality of APN s, associated with voice traffic,
forward, to another network device that is associated with a
packet data network, the traffic as a type of traffic that is not the voice
traffic when the particular APN does not match the at least one APN,
of the plurality of APN s, associated with voice traffic, and
forward the traffic, as a local call, to the second user device
when the traffic is determined to be the voice traffic and based on a
determination that both information associated with the first user
device and information associated with the second user device match
some of the information associated with the plurality of user devices
stored in the memory,
where forwarding the traffic as the local call is performed in a
manner that does not include sending the traffic to the other network
device.
2
Appeal2015-002062
Application 12/979,111
REJECTIONS
Claims 9-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Koodli et al. (US 2011/0075675 Al; published Mar. 31,
2011).
Claims 1-8 and 16-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Koodli and Shaheen (US
2011/0105131 Al; published May 5, 2011).
ANALYSIS
Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Koodli or
Shaheen 1 discloses "determin[ing] whether the traffic is voice traffic based
on whether a particular APN, that corresponds to the traffic, matches at least
one APN, of the plurality of APNs, associated with voice traffic," as recited
in independent claim 9 and commensurately recited in independent claims 1
and 16?
With respect to Koodli, the Examiner finds "the EGW [edge mobility
gateway] can provide for edge functions such as call localization which
identifies voice traffic that can take a shorter route[.]" (Ans. 28.) The
Examiner finds Koodli' s offload traffic and home traffic teach the claimed
"type[s] of traffic." (Ans. 28, citing Koodli i-fi-f 120-122, 144, Fig. 14.) The
Examiner further finds that in Koodli "a dedicated APN is for home traffic,
specifically voice traffic that can take shorter route; i.e., APN for voice
1 In the Final Rejection, the Examiner relies on Shaheen to teach the
disputed limitation in claim 1 and Koodli to teach the disputed limitation in
claims 9 and 16. (Final Act. 7, 13, 20.) In the Answer, the Examiner solely
addresses Koodli for the disputed limitation for each of claims 1, 9, and 16.
(Ans. 28, 32, 33, 35.)
3
Appeal2015-002062
Application 12/979,111
traffic, as claimed" and "[a]dditionally, a dedicated APN is for otlload
traffic, i.e., traffic that is not voice traffic, requiring traversing the core
network." (Ans. 29; see also Final Act. 7, Ans. 28.)
Appellants argue "Koodli merely disclose[s] the use of eNB[2] and
UL/DL identifiers to identify packet flow localization" and
[t]he fact that a packet flow can be a voice call is materially
different than having a processor determine whether the traffic is
voice traffic based on whether a particular APN that corresponds
to the traffic matches at least one APN, of the plurality of APNs,
associated with voice traffic.
(App. Br. 12, emphasis omitted.)
We agree with Appellants. Koodli describes that packet flows can be
voice calls. (Koodli i-f 104.) Koodli also describes that voice calls can be
localized to the edge of the network. (Koodli i-f 31.) However, in addition to
packetized voice, Koodli also describes a variety of different types of
network traffic, including voice over IP (VoIP) packets, quality of service
(QoS)-based data service, text messages, and data, and different types of
Internet traffic, including video, music, web content, or games. (Koodli
i-f 44.) Koodli further describes that, in providing offloading, "the EGW may
use a single common access point name (APN) for offload and home traffic
or dedicated APNs for each." (Koodli i-f 122.)
Although we agree with the Examiner that Koodli' s home traffic and
offload traffic disclose the claimed "types of traffic," we disagree with the
Examiner that Koodli's home traffic is necessarily voice traffic. Rather,
Koodli states "[h Jome traffic refers to the traffic that is sent via the
operator's core network to the home gateway," and is not limited to voice
2 Evolved NodeB. (Koodli i-f 39.)
4
Appeal2015-002062
Application 12/979,111
traffic. (Koodli if 33.) We further agree with the Examiner that Koodli
discloses a dedicated APN corresponding to the type of traffic. (Koodli
if 122.) However, although we observe that Koodli teaches localization of
voice calls, we find the Examiner has failed to explain with specificity how
Koodli teaches or suggests that the network device determines whether the
traffic (i.e. home traffic or offload traffic) is voice traffic based on whether a
particular APN that corresponds to the traffic matches at least one APN of
the plurality of APN s associated with voice traffic.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Koodli
teaches the disputed limitation in independent claims 1, 9, and 16.
We address Shaheen because the Examiner relied on Shaheen in the
Final Rejection to teach or suggest the disputed limitation in claim 1 (see
Final Act. 13), although the Examiner solely relied on Koodli in the Answer.
(See Ans. 18-19.) Appellants argue "Shaheen merely disclose[s]
determining whether calls may be locally routed, determining whether a
WTRU is a member of a CSG, and forwarding the call." (App. Br. 18.)
According to Appellants, "Shaheen is not concerned with determining the
type of calls the WTRU device is receiving, rather Shaheen is concerned
with identifying that the device is a CSG member." (App. Br. 19, emphasis
omitted.)
We agree with Appellants. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 10, 29,
52, and Figure 4 of Shaheen to teach the disputed limitation in claim 1.
(Final Act. 13.) Shaheen merely describes that "voice, data, applications,
and/or voice over internet protocol (VoIP) services" may be provided.
(Shaheen if 29.) After consideration of the Examiner's findings with respect
to the teachings in Shaheen, we find the Examiner has not persuasively
5
Appeal2015-002062
Application 12/979,111
demonstrated or identified within Shaheen that the network device
determines whether the traffic (i.e. home traffic or offload traffic) is voice
traffic based on whether a particular APN that corresponds to the traffic
matches at least one APN of the plurality of APN s associated with voice
traffic.
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Shaheen
teaches the disputed limitation in independent claim 1.
Since we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by
Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other arguments.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 1, 9, and 16, and dependent claims 2-8, 10-15, and 17-
24.
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-24 is
reversed.
REVERSED
6