Ex Parte GUODownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 20, 201613287507 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/287,507 11/02/2011 6449 7590 05/24/2016 ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P,C 607 14th Street, N.W. SUITE 800 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 Lei GUO 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. 3602-375 5543 EXAMINER DIVITO, WALTERJ ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/24/2016 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): PTO-PAT-Email@rfem.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte LEI GUO Appeal2014-008625 1 Application 13/287,507 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. HOM:ERE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. App. Br. 2. Appeal2014-008625 Application 13/287,507 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final Rejection of claims 1-19. App. Br. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appellant's Invention Appellant's invention is directed to a method and system for improving session continuity in an infrastructure network by allowing a user equipment (UE) having a dual address bearer (IPv4v6) to be handed over to a serving node that does not support dual addressing. Spec. i-f 13. In particular, upon receiving a request area update (RAU) from the UE (10), a target serving node (TSN) modifies the request, and sends to a gateway (GW) a modified bearer request indicating that the TSN (11) does not support dual internet protocol (IP). Id. at i129, Fig. 2. In return, the GW ( 13) sends to the TSN ( 11) a modified bearer response containing information about the new PDN bearer type to thereby allow the communication session to proceed. Id. Representative Claim Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows: 1. A method for signaling in an infrastructure network comprising a Source Serving Node (S-SN), a Target Serving Node (T-SN), and a first gateway (GW), wherein at least one Packet Data Network (PDN) bearer is established for a User Equipment (UE), comprising: sending, by the T-SN, a modify bearer request to the first 2 Appeal2014-008625 Application 13/287,507 GW, said bearer request indicating that the T-SN does not support dual Internet Protocol (IP) addressing for a PDN bearer being handed over from the S-SN to the T-SN; on the basis of the received modify bearer request, initiating, by the first GW, a modify bearer procedure where a new PDN bearer type for single IP addressing is defined; and sending, by the first GW, a modify bearer response to the T-SN, said bearer response comprising information about the new PDN bearer type, and said bearer response being separate and distinct from the bearer request. Olsson et al. Xi et al. Faccin et al. Fox et al. Prior Art Relied Upon US 2010/0111060 Al US 2010/0202351 Al US 2011/0171953 Al US 2012/0202491 Al Rejections on Appeal May 06, 2010 Aug. 12, 2010 July 14, 2011 Aug. 09, 2012 The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows: Claims 1, 2, 6, 9, and 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Faccin and Xi. Claims 3-5, 7, 8, 10, 11, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Faccin, Xi, and Fox. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Faccin. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Faccin and Olsson. 3 Appeal2014-008625 Application 13/287,507 ANALYSIS We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim as they are presented in the Appeal Brief, pages 7-16, and the Reply Brief, pages 2-10.2 First, Appellant argues that Faccin does not teach or suggest a T-SN sending to a GW a modifY bearer request indicating that the T-SN does not support dual IP protocol addressing, as recited in independent claim 1. App. Br. 7-12, Reply Br. 2-5. In particular, Appellant argues although Faccin's "general embodiment" discloses a serving node sending a modify bearer request to a gateway, the modify bearer request does not indicate that the serving node does not support dual IP addressing. App. Br. 7-8, Reply Br. 2. Further, Appellant argues Faccin's "connectivity embodiment" disclosing a serving node sending to a UE a bearer request indicating that only single version bearers are supported by the network does not cure the noted deficiencies of Faccin because the bearer request is not a modify bearer request, which is sent to a gateway. App. Br. 8-9, Reply Br. 2--4 (citing Faccin i-fi-1504--509). Additionally, Appellant submits the Examiner has not articulated, and there is no reason, why the ordinarily skilled artisan 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed Jan. 27, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed Aug. 4, 2014), and the Answer (mailed June 2, 2014) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii). 4 Appeal2014-008625 Application 13/287,507 would combine the two cited embodiments of Faccin. Id. These arguments are not persuasive. At the outset, we note Appellant's arguments are tantamount to an attack against the cited embodiments of Faccin individually, and not an argument against the combination proffered by the Examiner. As correctly noted by the Examiner, and undisputed by Appellant, Faccin's general embodiment teaches a serving node sending a bearer request to a gateway. Ans. 16. Likewise, it is undisputed that Faccin's connectivity embodiment teaches a bearer request indicating that only a single IP version is supported by the network. Id. Because the cited embodiments of Faccin disclose known prior art elements that perform their ordinary functions to predictably result in a serving node transmitting to a gateway a bearer request indicating that only a single IP version is supported (i.e., not both) by the network, we therefore agree with the Examiner that the proposed combination is proper, and it is supported by sufficient rational underpinning. 3 Id. at 16-17. Second, Appellant argues the combination of Faccin and Xi does not teach or suggest the gateway sending to the T-SN a modifY bearer response including information about the new P DN bearer type, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 10-12, Reply Br. 4--5. In particular, Appellant argues Xi discloses a first gateway sending a bearer request response to a second gateway, as 3 KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Examiner's rationale for the proposed combination is that "one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to perform such a modification given the benefit of allowing the UE to connect to IPv4v6, IPv4, and/or IPv6 systems." Ans. 4--5. 5 Appeal2014-008625 Application 13/287,507 opposed to the first gateway sending a bearer response to a serving node, the modify bearer response including information regarding the new PDN type. App. Br. 11 (citing Xi iii! 69, 71, 74). This argument is not persuasive. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Faccin discloses a gateway sending a modify bearer response to a serving node. Ans. 3 (citing Faccin, Fig. 8B, item 8-24). Further, Xi discloses a gateway sending to another gateway bearer response including the address of the sending gateway. Ans. 5 (citing Xi if 7 4 ), 17. We agree with the Examiner that the combination of Faccin and Xi would predictably result in a gateway sending to a serving node a bearer response including the address of the sending gateway. As correctly noted by the Examiner, Appellant merely contends that Xi's disclosure of including the gateway address in the bearer response does not teach information about a new PDN bearer type. Ans. 17. However, Appellant has not attempted to explain how the claimed information is distinguished from the disclosed address information in the bearer response. Therefore, on the record before us, Appellant has not shown error in the Examiner's finding that Xi's disclosure of including in the bearer response address information of a gateway teaches a new PDN bearer type included in the modify bearer response. Consequently, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Regarding the rejections of claims 2-19, because Appellant has either not presented separate patentability arguments or has reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 1 above, claims 2-19 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. 6 Appeal2014-008625 Application 13/287,507 § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 1-19. 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 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation