Ex Parte Jampolsky et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 29, 2012

10404586 (B.P.A.I. May. 29, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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.
10/404,586 03/31/2003 Laurie M. Jampolsky 1281a(16953) 7232
33272 7590 05/29/2012
SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY L.P.
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
MAILSTOP: KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
EXAMINER
IQBAL, KHAWAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2617
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/29/2012 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
________________

Ex parte LAURIE M. JAMPOLSKY,
DOUGLAS A. BAGAROZY, and VON K. MCCONNELL
________________

Appeal 2009-012182
Application 10/404,586
Technology Center 2600
___________________

Before SCOTT R. BOALICK, THOMAS S. HAHN, and
JENNIFER S. BISK, Administrative Patent Judges.

HAHN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appellants invoke our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
rejections of claims 11-18, and 24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). We affirm.

Appeal 2009-012182
Application 10/404,586
2
Exemplary Claim
Appealed independent claim 11 is exemplary and reads,
11. A method of collecting and reporting data relating to a
telecommunications device served by a network, wherein the network
includes a switching center and a control point, the method
comprising the steps of:
(a) setting a trigger in a home location register corresponding to the
telecommunications device;
(b) storing the data relating to the telecommunications device in the
control point in response to the trigger;
(c) receiving a data collection request relating to the
telecommunications device;
(d) sending a data collection query from the control point to the
switching center in response to the data collection request;
(e) collecting data relating to the telecommunications device from the
switching center in a data collection device in response to the data
collection query; and
(f) reporting the data.

Appeal 2009-012182
Application 10/404,586
3
Rejections

Claims 11-15, 17, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
being anticipated by Malmstrom (US 5,901,359; May 4, 1999)1 (Ans. 3-5).
Claims 16 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Malmstrom and Lohtia (US 6,560,456 B1; May 6, 2003 (filed
June 24, 1999)) (Ans. 5-6).
Appellants’ Contentions
Appellants assert and argue,
Independent claim 11 recites, in part, setting a trigger in a home
location register corresponding to the telecommunications device,
storing the data relating to the telecommunications device in the
control point in response to the trigger, and then receiving a data
collection request relating to the telecommunications device. The use
of a trigger allows data to be collected and reported automatically
during times that a device is active on the network. The trigger is
separate from an actual request by a user to receive actual data (see

1 Although § 102(e) is the cited statutory basis for this rejection (Ans. 3), the
cited Malmstrom reference qualifies as prior art under § 102(a) since it was
published on May 4, 1999—which is even prior to the Sept. 23, 1999 filing
date for Appellants’ cited parent continuation application serial number
09/401,933. This circumstance is deemed harmless since it does not affect
the assessment of the merits of the anticipation rejection.

Appeal 2009-012182
Application 10/404,586
4
specification page 8, line 3, to page 9, line 24). Thus, the trigger
works in tandem with the data collection device to provide more
functionality than just providing an instantaneous location of a mobile
transceiver.
(App. Br. 4-5).
Issue

Has the Examiner, under 35 U.S.C. § 102, erred in finding Malmstrom
explicitly or inherently teaches setting a trigger corresponding to a
telecommunications device; storing data relating to the device in response to
the trigger; and receiving a data collection request relating to the device as
recited in claim 11?
ANALYSIS

Citing to Malmstrom disclosures at col. 9, ll. 40-60 and col. 10, l. 53 –
col. 11, l. 4, the Examiner finds the reference teaches the claim 11 recited
setting a trigger corresponding to a telecommunications device (Ans. 3).
More specifically, the Examiner finds Malmstrom discloses a “HRL [Home
Location Register (34)] forwards ‘REGNOT [registration notice] message’
to WLR [Wireline Location Register] 24 after successful registration that
triggers a single number service for providing integrated wireless and
Appeal 2009-012182
Application 10/404,586
5
wireline communication networks for forwarding a call, see col. 9, lines 47-
60” (Ans. 3). The Examiner next interprets these disclosures to “mean[] that
due to successful registration, a trigger is automatically set in the HLR for
sending of the ‘REGNOT message’” (Ans. 3-4).
Appellants disagree and contend that claimed trigger aspects are not
set according to Malmstrom teachings (App. Br. 5). Appellants argue that
“[t]he WLR in Malmstrom merely maintains the current network location
for directing calls, and does not perform the functions recited in claim 11”
(id.).
In the Response to Argument section of the Answer, the Examiner
identifies finding Malmstrom teaches,
[A] method of collecting and reporting data relating to a
telecommunications device (i.e., collecting data or operating status of
a mobile device 40, fig.l) served by a network (integrated
wireline/wireless network 10, fig.l) wherein the network includes a
switching center (MSC 32, fig.1 ) and a control point (SCP 22, fig. 1),
the method comprising the steps of setting a trigger in a home location
register (34, fig. 1) corresponding to the telecommunications device
(col. 3 line 53-col. 4, line 10 and col. 9, lines 38-45, steps 80-48, fig.
3, i.e., registering mobile unit 40 in [a] wireless network in order to
trigger a route [for an] incoming call to subscriber's mobile unit
through a mobile service controller depending on a location and status
of subscriber[)]. In col. 9, lines 47-60, Malmstrom teaches that after
successful registration, the HLR forwards [a] "REGNOT message" to
WLR 24. It clearly means that due to successful registration, a trigger
Appeal 2009-012182
Application 10/404,586
6
is automatically set in the HLR for sending of the "REGNOT
message".
(Ans. 6-7).
Appellants argue that the triggering of a route is not claimed (Reply
Br. 2). Appellants further assert without citation to persuasive evidence that
there are no “actions in Malmstrom [that] imply . . . a trigger as claimed has
been automatically set” (id.). Appellants do not point out any claimed
distinguishing limitations. Reviewing claim 11, we do not find, for example
that automatically setting a trigger is claimed.
Based on our review of the record, we agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s above reproduced findings from Malmstrom that show the
reference teaches setting a trigger on registering a mobile unit, which as
claimed is separate from receiving a data collection request as claimed.
Appellants’ further contentions merely point out what claim 11 recites
(App. Br. 5), and as such are not considered arguments for patentability of
claim 11. 37 C.F.R. § 34.37 (c)(1)(vii).
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent
claim 11, and we also sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject dependent
claims 12-18, and 24, which are not separately argued.

Appeal 2009-012182
Application 10/404,586
7
ORDER

The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 11-18, and 24, 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

gvw