Ex Parte GUO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 20, 2016

13287507 (P.T.A.B. May. 20, 2016)

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