Ex Parte Funnell

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 26, 2012

10931265 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 26, 2012)

MOD PTOL-90A (Rev.06/08)

APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR

ATTORNEY DOCKET NO.
10/931,265 08/31/2004 Nicola Funnell 1578.631 (11302-US-PAT)

EXAMINER
DOCKET CLERK
Kelly-Krause
PO BOX 12608
DALLAS TX 75225
GENACK, MATTHEW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2644
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE

11/14/2012 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.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Address : COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________________________________________________________________________________

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NICOLA FUNNELL
____________

Appeal 2010-005801
Application 10/931,265
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DALE M. SHAW, Division 2 Support Administrator.

ERRATUM
The Decision mailed on September 28, 2012 makes the following
statement on page 5:

Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 4, and the claims which depend
thereupon.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that Krishnarajah
discloses transmitting a confirmation message from the UE to
Appeal 2010-005801
Application 10/931,265

2
the UTRAN that includes an activation time for applying the
new integrity protection configuration as recited in independent
claims 1 and 4.

This portion of the Decision is corrected to read:

-- Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 1 and 4, and the claims which depend
thereupon.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner erred in finding that Krishnarajah
discloses transmitting a confirmation message from the UE to
the UTRAN that includes an activation time for applying the
new integrity protection configuration as recited in independent
claims 1 and 4. --

All other portions of the original Decision remain unchanged.

If there any questions pertaining to this Erratum, please contact the
Patent Trial and Appeal Board at 571-272-9797.

msc

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte NICOLA FUNNELL
____________________

Appeal 2010-005801
Application 10/931,265
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and TREVOR M.
JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-005801
Application 10/931,265
2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from rejection of claims
1-7. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We REVERSE.

The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for setting an
integrity protection uplink application time for signaling a radio bearer in a
universal mobile telecommunications system. Spec., Tech. Field. Claims 1
and 4, reproduced below with emphases added, are representative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method for setting an uplink application time for a new
integrity protection configuration to be applied for signalling
(sic) radio bearer RB0 in a UMTS communications system, the
method comprising:
receiving a UTRAN MOBILITY INFORMATION
message at a user equipment, the message indicating that a new
integrity protection configuration is to be applied;
transmitting a UTRAN MOBILITY INFORMATION
CONFIRM message to the UTRAN including an activation time
for applying the new integrity protection configuration for
RB0; and
receiving confirmation of receipt of the UTRAN
MOBILITY INFORMATION CONFIRM message at the
UTRAN and, in response to the confirmation, setting the uplink
application time for RB0 to a value such that the next RRC
message to be sent on uplink RB0 will use the new integrity
protection configuration.

4. A user equipment for setting an uplink application time
for a new integrity protection configuration to be applied for
signalling (sic) radio bearer RB0 in a UMTS communications
system, the user equipment comprising:
a receiver for receiving a UTRAN MOBILITY
INFORMATION message from a UTRAN, the message
Appeal 2010-005801
Application 10/931,265
3
indicating that a new integrity protection configuration is to be
applied;
a control module for selecting an activation time for
applying the new integrity protection configuration for RB0;
and
a transmitter for transmitting a UTRAN MOBILITY
INFORMATION CONFIRM message to the UTRAN including
the selected activation time;
wherein the control module is further arranged to receive
confirmation of receipt of the UTRAN MOBILITY
INFORMATION CONFIRM message at the UTRAN and, in
response to the confirmation, to set the uplink application time
for RB0 to a value such that the next RRC message to be sent
on uplink RB0 will use the new integrity protection
configuration.

REJECTION
Claims 1-7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §102(e) as being anticipated
by Krishnarajah (US 7,020,455, Mar. 28, 2006). Ans. 3.

OPINION
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that Krishnarajah discloses
transmitting a confirmation message from the UE to the UTRAN that
includes an activation time for applying the new integrity protection
configuration as recited in independent claims 1 and 4?1

1 Appellant makes additional arguments regarding claims 1 and 4. App. Br.
14-15. We do not reach these additional issues since this issue is dispositive
as to independent claims 1 and 4 and their related dependent claims.
Appeal 2010-005801
Application 10/931,265
4

ANALYSIS
Having reviewed Appellant’s contentions that the Examiner erred
(App. Br. 12-15; Reply Br. 2-6) and the Examiner’s rejections and response
(Ans. 2-8), we agree with Appellant’s argument that Krishnarajah does not
“disclose the transmitting of an UTRAN MOBILITY INFORMATION
CONFIRM message including an activation time to the UTRAN” (App. Br.
13; Reply Br. 5).
The Examiner found that in Krishnarajah the “radio receives a
message indicating that a security reconfiguration operation is necessary,
and the mobile radio responds with an acknowledgement, and sets an
activation message sequence number for each uplink bearer, including RB0,
1, 2, 3, and 4 (Column 7 Lines 40-46).” Ans. 3, 6. Thus, Krishnarajah’s
mobile radio acknowledgement (col. 7, ll. 41-43) is equivalent to the
“UTRAN MOBILITY INFORMATION CONFIRM message including an
activation time” as recited in independent claims 1 and 4.
We fail to discern and the Examiner has not indicated where the
Security Mode Command acknowledgement in Krishnarajah (col. 7, ll. 40-
45 (discussing acknowledgement message from UE to UTRAN); Figure 8),
includes an “activation time” as claimed. Although the Examiner has
detailed where the UE in Krishnarajah sets the “activation message sequence
number of each [radio] bearer,” this setting of the activation message
sequence number takes place after the Security Mode Command
acknowledgment takes place. Ans. 6; see Krishnarajah col. 7, ll. 40-44. The
Examiner has not adequately shown how this activation sequence message
or some other indication of time is communicated in the mobile radio
acknowledgement identified by the Examiner. See Ans. 3, 6.
Appeal 2010-005801
Application 10/931,265
5
Although Appellant’s process as described in the Specification
(¶¶ [007], [008]) and the Security Mode Command procedure of
Krishnarajah (col. 7, ll. 24-26) are largely identical and “both … use of
[their] the respective message (e.g., the UTRAN MOBILITY
INFORMATION message, and the Security Mode command) for the
changing of the security configuration of a connection between the UE and
the UTRAN using the radio bearer RB0” (Ans. 5), and the transmission of
the “an activation time for applying the new integrity protection
configuration” is not sufficiently identified to support the Examiner’s
anticipation rejection for independent claims 1 and 4. Accordingly, we
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 4, and the claims
which depend thereupon.

CONCLUSIONS
The Examiner did not err in finding that Krishnarajah discloses
transmitting a confirmation message from the UE to the UTRAN that
includes an activation time for applying the new integrity protection
configuration as recited in independent claims 1 and 4.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 is
reversed.

REVERSED
tj