Ex Parte Hu

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 3, 2013

12613828 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2013)

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.
12/613,828 11/06/2009 Weihua Hu 4202-10200 7159
97698 7590 09/04/2013
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
EXAMINER
TAYLOR, BARRY W
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/04/2013 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 WEIHUA HU
____________

Appeal 2011-002773
Application 12/613,828
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, JOHN G. NEW, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14. Claims 2 and 10 have been canceled.
Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.

Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method and system for routing data
of a roaming user. See Abstract. Illustrative claim 1 is reproduced below:
Appeal 2011-002773
Application 12/613,828

2
1. A method, comprising:
determining, by a determining unit, whether a roaming network is
allowed to allocate an Internet Protocol (IP) address according to a user
identifier, an identifier of the roaming network, and a roaming agreement
between the roaming network and a home network; and
sending, by a sending unit, an indication to a network entity according
to the determination,
wherein the indication comprises information regarding whether the
roaming network is allowed to allocate an IP address.

The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Bourdeaut US 2004/0203775 A1 Oct. 14, 2004
Haumont US 2005/0064889 A1 Mar. 24, 2005

Global System for Mobile Communications, 3GPP TR 23.882 Draft v0.9.0
(2005-12), Technical Report (Release 7) 1-71 (2004) (“3GPP”).

The Rejections
Claims 1, 3-5, 8, 9, and 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over 3GPP and Haumont. Ans. 4-21.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over 3GPP, Haumont, and Bourdeaut. Ans. 21-22.

THE CONTENTIONS
Regarding illustrative independent claim 1, Appellant argues that the
Examiner admits 3GPP does not discuss determining whether the roaming
network is allowed to allocate an IP address and relies upon Haumont.
Br. 7-10. Haumont, in the Appellant’s view, only teaches selecting a
Gateway General Packet Radio Service (GPRS) Support Node (GGSN) but
does not determine whether a roaming network is allowed to allocate an IP
address. Br. 8. Even more so, Appellant contends Haumont fails to teach
Appeal 2011-002773
Application 12/613,828

3
making this determination according to a user identifier, an identifier of the
roaming network, and a roaming agreement between the roaming network
and a home network as recited. See Br. 8-16. Finally, Appellant argues that
§ 7.13.2 and other sections of 3GPP teaches selecting an Inter AS (Access
System) Anchor but fails to teach determining whether a roaming network is
allowed to allocate an IP address as recited. Br. 16-19.

ISSUE
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that 3GPP and Haumont collectively would have taught or suggested
determining whether a roaming network is allowed to allocate an IP address
according to a user identifier, an identifier of the roaming network, and a
roaming agreement between the roaming network and a home network?

ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of illustrative claim 1. Although Appellant asserts that the
combination fails to teach the recited determining step (Br. 19), Appellant’s
argument focuses on the teachings in Haumont (Br. 8-16) and 3GPP (Br. 16-
19) individually. Such an individual attack on the references does not show
nonobviousness where a rejection is based on references collectively. In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner
relies on the teachings from both 3GPP and Haumont to suggest the recited
step of determining whether a roaming network is allowed to allocate an IP
address according to a user identifier, an identifier of the roaming network,
Appeal 2011-002773
Application 12/613,828

4
and a roaming agreement between the roaming network and a home
network.
Turning to 3GPP, the Examiner finds § 7.9.2 teaches a Default IP
Access Service for roaming users shall provide a UE (User Entity) with an
IP address allocated by the network upon authentication and authorization of
the user. See Ans. 23. 3GPP specifically teaches a Default IP Access
Service in a serving (access) network is established upon user authentication
and authorization and the Default IP Access Service provides a UE of a
roaming user with an IP address allocated by the serving (access) network
for a roaming user (e.g., a roaming network). 3GPP § 7.9.2 (p. 35). This
teaching suggests determining whether a roaming network (e.g., the serving
network) is allowed to allocate an IP address upon user authentication (e.g.,
according to a user identifier). See id.
Additionally, the Examiner notes that Appellant states in the
Accelerated Examination Support Document that 3GPP teaches IP address
configuration is determined by user preferences, by subscription data, or by
HPLMN (Home Public Land Mobile Network) or VPLMN (Visited Public
Land Mobile Network) policies. See Ans. 4, 23 (citing “paper dated
11/6/2009, page 2-page 3”). November 6, 2009 Support Document 2-3
(citing Fig. 7-13-1 and pages 40-42). The Examiner further finds “that
anyone of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention would recognize
that subscription data typically includes [a] user identifier and [that]
HPLMN or VPLMN are typically used to identify home and visited
networks (i.e.[,] roaming network).” Ans. 29 (emphases omitted). Given
that Appellant does not rebut this finding and 3GPP discusses determining
IP address configuration using subscription data, we further agree with the
Appeal 2011-002773
Application 12/613,828

5
Examiner (see id.) that 3GPP suggests using a user identifier and an
identifier of the roaming network during IP address configuration (e.g.,
allocating an IP address).
Moreover, the Accelerated Examination Support Document also states
that claim 1 is not “rendered obvious by 3GPP at least because 3GPP does
not teach or disclose determining whether a roaming network is allowed to
allocate an IP address according to a roaming agreement . . .” See
November 6, 2009 Support Document 2 (emphasis omitted). This statement
further suggests that 3GPP teaches determining whether a roaming network
is allowed to allocate an IP address according to the other recited criteria in
claim 1 (i.e., user identifier and identifier of the roaming network). Given
the above findings, we disagree with Appellant that 3GPP only teaches
selecting an Inter AS Anchor and fails to teach or suggest determining
whether a roaming network is allowed to allocate an IP address according to
a user identifier and an identifier of the roaming network. Br. 16-19.
Thus, “[t]he only limitation missing [from 3GPP] is the Roaming
agreement between the roaming network and the home network which is . . .
met by Haumont (see rejection listed above).” Ans. 29. As the Examiner is
relying on Haumont for its specific teachings related to a roaming
agreement, we are not persuaded by any argument concerning Haumont
failing to teach the other recitations concerning a user identifier and an
identifier for the roaming network. See Br. 15. Even so, as the Examiner
indicates (see Ans. 23, 25), 3GPP discusses the Default IP Access Service
shall provide IP connectivity based on roaming restriction (§ 7.9.2.) and
checking roaming restrictions, when discussing the MME/UPE (Mobile
Management Entity/User Plane Entity) (e.g., a determining unit as mapped
Appeal 2011-002773
Application 12/613,828

6
by the Examiner (see Ans. 26)) allocating the temporary identity to the UE
(p. 42, Item (12) in § 7.13.2). 3GPP thus discusses considering roaming
restrictions or terms when providing IP connectivity.
Haumont supplements 3GPP’s teachings. See Ans. 5-6, 26-27.
Haumont teaches a “‘partner network’ refers to a network having an
agreement to provide access to the other network and/or to gain access
through the other network.” Haumont ¶ 0007. Haumont discusses examples
of partner networks that include roaming partners. See id. Thus, the
Examiner notes Haumont teaches a known technique of using a roaming
agreement between a roaming network (e.g., partner network) and a home
network (e.g., a network) to determine whether to provide and gain access to
other networks. See Ans. 26.
Additionally, Haumont teaches that a mobile station that is outside the
home network (e.g., a roaming user) but is part of a predefined partner
network of the home network can be connected to a visited GGSN. ¶ 0009.
Haumont provides more details of how this is achieved. See Ans. 26-27
(citing ¶¶ 0030-32). In a discussed third embodiment of Haumont (¶ 0032),
the HLR (Home Location Register) maintains information about the SGSN
(Serving GPRS Support Node) addresses of its other networks, which are
referred to as “predefined partner networks belonging to the home network
operator” (e.g., roaming networks). Id. For example, information about the
SGSN addresses belonging to a mobile network PLMN2 that is a predefined
partner network to the mobile network PLMN1 is maintained in the HLR1.
See ¶ 0030; Figs. 1, 3. Upon receiving an Update Location Request at the
HLR, Haumont’s routine checks whether the SGSN1 belongs to a
preconfigured list containing SGSN addresses of predefined partner
Appeal 2011-002773
Application 12/613,828

7
operators. Id.; Figs. 1, 3. If the SGSN1 belongs to the list, a “VPLMN
address allowed”-flag is set to “Yes,” and the GGSN1 is selected. ¶ 0032.
Haumont thus teaches selecting a GGSN based on the predefined
partnership (e.g., a roaming agreement). See ¶¶ 0007; 0032. Yet, unlike
Appellant’s assertions (Br. 11-12), Haumont teaches more than selecting a
GGSN. Haumont explains that this third scenario is suitable in the case
where the same PLMN IP services can be accessed from the GGSN1 as from
the home GGSN. ¶ 0032. This suggests another network (e.g., the network
associated with GGSN1) allocates the IP addresses (e.g., provides the same
PLMN IP services using PLMN1 IP Services) for a user of a partner
network, once a determination is made that GGSN1 is to be the GGSN at
SGSN1. Id. Haumont further teaches that a mobile station can be connected
to a visited GGSN (e.g., GGSN1) when the mobile station is outside the
home network and is a predefined partner network of the home network. ¶¶
0009, 0032; Figs. 1, 3. These teachings in Haumont collectively suggest that
determining the appropriate GGSN also determines whether a roaming
network is allowed to allocate an IP address. See ¶¶ 0007-0009, 0030, 0032;
Figs. 1, 3. We are therefore not persuaded by the argument that the GGSN
does not allocate IP addresses (Br. 8-9) or that a selection of the GGSN does
not involve determining whether a roaming network is allowed to allocate an
IP address as broadly as recited (Br. 10).
Moreover, when applying Haumont’s teachings with 3GPP,
Haumont’s technique improves on 3GPP’s process of determining whether a
roaming network is allowed to allocate an IP address. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). That is, as stated above, 3GPP
teaches and suggests determining whether a roaming network is allowed to
Appeal 2011-002773
Application 12/613,828

8
allocate an IP address according to a user identifier and an identifier of the
roaming network. 3GPP §§ 7.9.2 and 7.13.2. Haumont further teaches that
a skilled artisan would have known to consider a partnership or roaming
agreement prior when determining a GGSN to use, which in turn, determines
which PLMN will be used to provide IP services (e.g., allocate IP
addresses). See Haumont ¶¶ 0007-0009, 0030, 0032; Figs. 1, 3. Haumont’s
technique avoids the problem of directing a mobile station to use a GGSN of
a home network rather than a closer GGSN of a visiting or roaming network,
as well as its PLMN, based on an agreement. See Haumont ¶¶ 0004, 0007,
0009, 0032.
As such, we agree with the Examiner that combining Haumont’s
teaching with 3GPP so as to modify the 3GPP’s step of determining whether
a roaming network is allowed to allocate an IP address to further consider a
roaming agreement between a roaming network and a home network would
give flexibility to the home operator to control the GGSN selection. See
Ans. 6, 27. 3GPP and Haumont, when combined, teach or suggest
determining whether a roaming network is allowed to allocate an IP address
based on a user identifier, an identifier of the roaming network, and a
roaming agreement between the roaming network and a home network. We
therefore disagree with Appellant that 3GPP and Haumont collectively fail
to teach the recited determining step. See Br. 10, 15, 19.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the rejection of independent claim 1 and claims 3-5, 8, 9 and 11-14 not
separately argued with particularity.

Appeal 2011-002773
Application 12/613,828

9
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER 3GPP, HAUMONT, AND
BOURDEAUT

Claims 6 and 7 depend from claim 1 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over 3GPP, Haumont, and Bourdeaut. Ans. 21-22.
Appellant does not separately address this rejection or these claims. See
App. Br. 6 n. 2. The issue before us is then the same as those in connection
with illustrative claim 1. Accordingly, we refer Appellant to our previous
discussion and sustain the rejection of claims 6 and 7.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 under
§ 103.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-9, and 11-14 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).

AFFIRMED

kis