Ex Parte Holur et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 3, 2016

11456872 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
111456,872 07/12/2006
86846 7590 08/05/2016
Baker Botts L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue, 6th Floor
Dallas, TX 75201
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Balaji S. Holur
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.
062891.2184 6271
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, STEVEN HD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2414
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/05/2016 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):
PTOmaill@bakerbotts.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BALAJI S. HOLUR, MICHAEL L. SHANNON, and
KENNETH W. DAVIDSON
Appeal2015-004870
Application 11/456,872
Technology Center 2400
Before CATHERINE SHIANG, KAMRAN JIVANI, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 22, 25-32, and 35--49, which are all the claims pending
and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to wireless communications. See
generally Spec. 1. Claim 22 is exemplary:
Appeal2015-004870
Application 11/456,872
Abrol
Holur
Katz
22. An apparatus, comprising:
a service node of a macro network operable to:
provide an authentication, authorization, and accounting (AAA)
proxy for a micro wireless network and the macro wireless network;
receive, from an access point associated with the micro wireless
network, a request to authenticate the handover of a wireless session
from the macro wireless network to the micro wireless network;
manage the authentication of the wireless session using the
AAA proxy; and
in response to the authentication, extract the mobile station
identifier from the request, determine that the wireless session already
exists, re-anchor a virtual path associated with the wireless session to
the access point associated with the wireless network, and determine
whether the wireless session is a direct access call session or a mobile
Internet Protocol (IP) session.
References and Rejections
US 2002/0068570 Al
US 7,133,386 B2
US 2006/0291455 Al
June 6, 2002
Nov. 7, 2006
Dec. 28, 2006
Claims 22, 25-32, and 35--49 are rejected on the ground of non-
statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of Holur
in view of Abrol.
2
Appeal2015-004870
Application 11/456,872
Claims 22, 25-32, and 35--49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Katz and Abrol.
ANALYSIS
Non-Statutory Double Patenting
Because Appellants do not contest the merits of the rejection, we
summarily sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 22, 25-32, and 35--49
on the ground of non-statutory double patenting. See Ans. 2--4.
Obviousness
We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions regarding claims 22 and 32 in
(i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the
extent they are consistent with our analysis below. 1
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 22.
Appellants contend Katz and Abrol do not collectively teach "a
service node of a macro network operable to: ... in response to the
authentication, extract the mobile station identifier from the request,
determine that the wireless session already exists, re-anchor a virtual path
associated with the wireless session to the access point associated with the
wireless network, and determine whether the wireless session is a direct
access call session or a mobile Internet Protocol (IP) session," as recited in
claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 14--15; Reply Br. 2-3. In
1 To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
3
Appeal2015-004870
Application 11/456,872
particular, Appellants assert Abrol does not teach "a service node of a macro
network operable to ... extract the mobile station identifier from the
request," because Abol's destination network node-not a service node of a
macro network---does the operation. See App. Br. 15; Reply Br. 3.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error.
First, because the Examiner relies on the combination of Katz and
Abrol to teach the disputed claim limitation, Appellants cannot establish
nonobviousness by attacking the references individually. See In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not dispute-Katz teaches "a
service node of a macro network operable to" perform functions. See Ans.
4. Therefore, Abrol does not need to separately teach that claim limitation.
The Examiner finds-and Appellants do not off any substantive
argument to dispute-"extract[ing] the mobile station identifier from the
request" is taught by or would have been obvious in light of Abrol's
teachings. See Ans. 5, 9--10, 12; Abrol Fig. 7; i-f 67; In re Baxter Travenol
Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this
court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by
an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art.").
Therefore, the Examiner correctly finds Katz and Abrol collectively
teach "a service node of a macro network operable to ... extract the mobile
station identifier from the request." See Ans. 5---6, 9--10. Applying Abrol's
extracting technique in the Katz system would have predictably used prior
art elements according to their established functions-an obvious
improvement. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Second, Appellants' general assertion that
4
Appeal2015-004870
Application 11/456,872
none of the techniques disclosed in Katz include an operation
performed by the macro network service node (i.e., the source
node in a handover operation) that includes "in response to the
authentication, extract[ing] the mobile station identifier from
the request, determine that the wireless session already exists,
reanchor a virtual path associated with the wireless session to
the access point associated with the wireless network, and
determine whether the wireless session is a direct access call
session or a mobile Internet Protocol (IP) session," as recited in
amended Claim 22
(App. Br. 14) is unpersuasive of error. In contrast, the Examiner cites
specific paragraphs from Katz, and finds the cited Katz portions teach
"in response to the authentication, ... determine that the wireless
session already exists, re-anchor a virtual path associated with the
wireless session to the access point associated with the wireless
network, and determine whether the wireless session is a direct access
call session or a mobile Internet Protocol (IP) session." See Ans. 5, 9.
i\.ppellants fail to critique the Katz portions cited by the Examiner,
and fail to show error in the Examiner's findings. See Baxter
Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d at 391.
Because Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 22, and corresponding dependent claims
that Appellants do not separately argue.
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 32,
and corresponding dependent claims that Appellants do not separately argue.
Separately Argued Dependent Claims
Regarding dependent claims 25 and 35, we agree with Appellants that
the Examiner fails to show the cited Katz portions teach the claim limitation
5
Appeal2015-004870
Application 11/456,872
"receive AAA data from an access point of the micro wireless network
during layer-two authentication." See App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 3--4. The
Examiner initially cites Katz's paragraph 356 for the disputed claim
limitation. See Ans. 6. In response to Appellants' arguments, the Examiner
cites Katz's Figure 8 and paragraph 285. See Ans. 13. Absent further
explanation from the Examiner, we do not recognize how the cited portions
of Katz teach the disputed claim limitation.
Regarding dependent claims 46 and 48, we agree with Appellants that
the Examiner fails to show the cited portions of the references teach the
claim limitation "if the wireless session is a direct access call session, create
a data session record corresponding to a record in the micro network." See
App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 4--6. The Examiner initially cites Abrol's
paragraphs 58---66, and additionally cites Katz's paragraphs 335-627 in the
response. See Ans. 7, 13. Absent further explanation from the Examiner,
we do not recognize how the cited portions of Katz teach the disputed claim
limitation.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 25, 35,
46, and 48.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 22, 25-32, and
35--49 on the ground of non-statutory double patenting.
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 22, 26-32, and
36--45, 47, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejection claims 25, 35, 46, and
48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
6
Appeal2015-004870
Application 11/456,872
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