Ex Parte Du et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2015

12493358 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/493,358 06/29/2009 Qian Du 13674-218 9224
93823 7590 08/21/2015
BGL/Huawei
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
EXAMINER
HAILU, KIBROM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/21/2015 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte QIAN DU, BING WEI, XIAOYUN WANG,
LEIBIN WANG, SHUFENG SHI, PENG ZHAO, and
XUEXIA YAN1
____________________

Appeal 2013-006477
Application 12/493,358
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Appellants identify Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., as the real party in
interest. (Br. 2.)
Appeal 2013-006477
Application 12/493,358

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
9–13. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Introduction
According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention relates to a method
for service processing in the field of communication technology” and
“further relates to a method, a system, and a device for returning user data,
and more particularly to a method, a system, and a device for returning user
data after data of a network element is invalid in an IP multimedia
subsystem network.” (Spec. ¶ 2.)
Representative Claim
Claim 9, reproduced below with disputed limitation italicized, is
representative of the claimed subject matter:
9. A method for service processing, comprising:
receiving, by a proxy call session control function (P-
CSCF), a service request message sent by a user equipment
(UE) registered to an IP multimedia subsystem, wherein the
service request message is different from a register message;
and
returning, by the P-CSCF, an error response to the UE to
trigger an initial registration when the P-CSCF is unable to
contact a serving call session control function (S-CSCF).

Appeal 2013-006477
Application 12/493,358

3
REFERENCE
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mayer et al. US 2007/0275710 A1 Nov. 29, 2007

REJECTION
Appellants seek our review of the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–13
under 35 U.S.C § 102(e) as being anticipated by Mayer.2 (Final Act. 10–
11.)

ISSUE
Appellants argue against the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–13 as
anticipated by Mayer. Although Appellants concede that Mayer teaches the
“receiving” step of claim 9, Appellants argue that Mayer does not teach the
“returning” step.
Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that Mayer teaches “returning,
by the P-CSCF, an error response to the UE to trigger an initial registration
when the P-CSCF is unable to contact a serving call session control function
(S-CSCF),” as recited in claim 9?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of the Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions and we adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2–

2 Appellants have canceled claims 1–8, 14, and 15. (Br. 2.)
Appeal 2013-006477
Application 12/493,358

4
5 and 10–11); and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (Ans. 3–7), and
concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the
following for emphasis.3
Appellants characterize claim 9 as having two limitations—the
“receiving” limitation (“Limitation 1”) and the “returning” limitation
(“Limitation 2”). (Br. 3–4.) Appellants admit that FIG. 3 of Mayer
discloses “Limitation 1” in claim 9. (Br. 4.) Appellants argue that Mayer
does not teach Limitation 2, asserting that Limitation 2 requires an “initial
registration” when “the P-CSCF returns the error response to the UE,”
whereas Mayer teaches that the “UE performs a re-registration (rather than
the initial registration as in claim 9).” (Br. 5.) According to Appellants,
“the initial registration is used for registering the UE with the network; but
the re-registration is used for keeping the registration alive.” (Id.)
Appellants also concede, however, that Mayer discloses a “new
registration,” which Appellants acknowledge “may be considered as the
initial registration in claim 9.” (Br. 5.) Appellants assert that Mayer is
nevertheless distinguishable because, they contend, Mayer discloses that the
error message to trigger the “new registration” is sent “when the I-CSCF is
unable to contact the S-CSCF, but not when the P-CSCF is unable to contact
the S-CSCF as required by claim 9.” (Br. 5, 6.)
The Examiner disagrees with Appellants’ reading of Mayer. (Ans. 4.)
The Examiner finds:

3 Only those arguments actually made by Appellants have been considered
in this decision. Arguments that Appellants did not make in their brief have
not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2013-006477
Application 12/493,358

5
As admitted by the Appellant, if the S-CSCF was found to be
the originator of the problem, a new registration is initiated.
This is simply an initial registration. It is true that the P-CSCF
may determine that the originator of the problem is S-CSCF
from I-CSCF. However, it is the P-CSCF that returns the pass
back error message, indicating the originator of the problem or
failure is S-CSCF, to the UE.
(Ans. 4 citing Mayer Fig. 3 and ¶¶ 117–122 (emphasis added).) The
Examiner further finds:
Mayer also explicitly describes the first network element, which
in this case, P-CSCF . . . may detect that the serving network
element (S-CSCF) is out of service, and then the P-CSCF sends
or returns an error message to the UE including an indication
that the S-CSCF is out of service . . . .
(Ans. 5 citing Mayer ¶¶ 16, 25, 26.) The Examiner further finds that “the
error response including an indication that the S-CSCF is out of service,
triggers the UE to send a second message to initiate registration.” (Ans. 5
citing Mayer ¶ 18.) As such, the Examiner further finds, “the type of the
second message may be an initial registration,” as recited in claim 9. (Ans. 6
citing Mayer ¶ 30).)
We agree that the Examiner’s findings are supported by the teachings
of Mayer, and we are thus unpersuaded of Examiner error in finding that
claim 9 is anticipated by Mayer. We therefore sustain the rejection.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim
10 as anticipated by Mayer. In particular, Appellants argue that Mayer does
not disclose the limitation “returning, by the P-CSCF, the error response to
the UE when the P-CSCF does not receive a response message responding to
the service request message from the S-CSCF.” (Br. 6.) Appellants assert
the cited portions of Mayer “just disclose that the P-CSCF sends a first
Appeal 2013-006477
Application 12/493,358

6
message to the S-CSCF which is out of service (e.g., failure), then the P-
CSCF sends an error message to the UE. Mayer does not disclose how to
determined [sic] the S-CSCF is out of service as that recited in claim 10.”
(Br. 7.)
The Examiner disagrees with the Appellants’ argument. The
Examiner finds Mayer teaches that “the network element, P-CSCF, forwards
the message to the serving network element, S-CSCF, and the P-CSCS
detects and/or determines that the S-CSCF is out of service, [and this
therefore] means that the S-CSCF is not responding to the message sent by
the P-CSCF.” (Ans. 6 citing Mayer ¶ 28.) The Examiner further finds that
Mayer discloses a predetermined time period has passed since
the forwarding of the message from the P-CSCF to the S-CSCF
before a response has been received from the SCSCF.
Meaning, it is clear that the P-CSCF returns an error message to
the UE when the P-CSCF fails to receive a response from the S-
CSCF after the predetermined period of time has been passed.

(Ans. 6–7 citing Mayer ¶¶ 28, 34 (emphasis added).)
We agree that the Examiner’s findings are supported by the teachings
of Mayer, and we are thus unpersuaded of Examiner error in finding that
claim 10 is anticipated by Mayer. We therefore sustain the rejection.
Appellants do not argue claims 11, 12, or 13 separately from claims 9
and 10. (Br. 8.) Therefore, for the reasons stated above, we also sustain the
rejection of claims 11, 12, and 13 as anticipated by Mayer.

Appeal 2013-006477
Application 12/493,358

7
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9–13 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Mayer 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)(1)(iv) (2013).

AFFIRMED

tj