Ex Parte Kandregula et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2013

10889908 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ANIL K. KANDREGULA and MICHAEL D. HALL
____________

Appeal 2010-007996
Application 10/889,908
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
LYNNE E. PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judges.

PETTIGREW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.

Appeal 2010-007996
Application 10/889,908

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellants, their invention relates to a collaborative
state machine framework for use in a communication network. Spec. ¶ 001.
Claims 1, 11, and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the
invention (disputed limitation italicized):
1. For use in a communication network, an apparatus
comprising:
a processor comprising a state machine capable of
transitioning between a plurality of states, wherein the plurality
of states comprises at least two concurrent states; and
wherein the state machine is further capable of operating
in the at least two concurrent states concurrently.
Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner has rejected claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Salkini (US 6,912,230 B1; June 28, 2005) and
Chapuran (US 6,967,933 B2; Nov. 22, 2005). Ans. 4-15.
Issues on Appeal
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issues on appeal are:
1. Does the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teach or suggest
a state machine capable of operating in at least two states concurrently, as
recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 14-17)?
2. Did the Examiner improperly combine Salkini and Chapuran in
rejecting claim 1 (App. Br. 17-19)?
3. Does the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teach or suggest
“a correlation state capable of initiating transitions to the concurrent states
Appeal 2010-007996
Application 10/889,908

3
and receiving results from execution of tasks associated with the concurrent
states,” as recited in claims 3 and 16 (App. Br. 19-21)?
4. Does the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teach or suggest
“wherein at least one of the states is associated with a task comprising a
plurality of sub-tasks and the at least one state comprises: a plurality of
normal sub-states associated with the sub-tasks; and a plurality of exception
sub-states associated with exception handling,” as recited in claim 5 and
commensurately recited in claim 18 (App. Br. 22-24)?
5. Does the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teach or suggest
a “correlation state capable of facilitating communication between tasks
associated with at least two other states,” as recited in claim 7 (App. Br. 24-
25)?
6. Does the combination of Salkini and Chapuran teach or suggest
“wherein at least one of a semaphore, a shared memory, global data, and an
interrupt is used to facilitate communication between the tasks associated
with the at least two other states,” as recited in claim 8 (App. Br. 25)?

ANALYSIS
Claim 1
The Examiner finds that Salkini discloses a processor comprising a
state machine for call processing in a communication network. Ans. 4;
Salkini, col. 11, ll. 33-46; col. 18, l. 37 – col. 21, l. 19; Fig. 23 (state
machine for mobile originated call processing); see also Salkini, col. 21,
l. 20 – col. 26, l. 28; Figs. 24-27 (additional call processing state machines).
Because the Examiner finds that Salkini does not disclose a state machine
that operates in at least two states concurrently, as recited in claim 1, the
Appeal 2010-007996
Application 10/889,908

4
Examiner turns to Chapuran for that teaching. Ans. 5-6, 15-17.
Specifically, the Examiner finds that Chapuran discloses a single basic call
state model (BCSM) processor (common call processor 524) that performs
the functions of both an originating BCSM processor and a terminating
BCSM processor. Ans. 6, 16; Chapuran, col. 6, l. 64 – col. 7, l. 3; Figs.
7 & 8. Further, the Examiner finds that the single BCSM processor is
equivalent to a single state machine that operates in two states concurrently,
e.g., O_Active and T_Active event states, as shown in Figures 7 and 8 of
Chapuran. Ans. 16-17.
Appellants contend that the single BCSM processor in Chapuran is
not a state machine capable of operating in two states concurrently. App.
Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 3-5. Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s finding
that O_Active and T_Active are concurrent states, but instead allege they are
not concurrent states within a single state machine. App. Br. 17; Reply Br.
4. Specifically, Appellants argue that Chapuran teaches two separate BCSM
stacks, an originating BCSM stack and a terminating BCSM stack, from
which they conclude that the single BCSM processor in Chapuran may run
multiple state machines. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 4-5; see Chapuran, Figs.
7 & 8.
Appellants have not persuaded us that the Examiner has erred in
finding that Chapuran teaches a single state machine capable of operating in
two states concurrently. Appellants’ Specification broadly describes a state
machine consistent with their invention as “any hardware, software,
firmware, or combination thereof supporting the execution of multiple tasks
in two or more concurrent states.” Spec. ¶ 030. The single BCSM processor
in Chapuran does exactly this—it supports the execution of call processing
Appeal 2010-007996
Application 10/889,908

5
tasks associated with two concurrent states, e.g., O_Active and T_Active.
Chapuran, Figs. 7 & 8. Thus, under the broadest reasonable interpretation of
the claim language consistent with Appellants’ Specification, we agree with
the Examiner that Chapuran discloses a state machine capable of operating
in at least two states concurrently, as recited in claim 1. See Ans. 16-17.
Appellants also argue that the Examiner has not provided a sufficient
rationale for combining Salkini and Chapuran in rejecting claim 1. App. Br.
17-19; Reply Br. 5. The Examiner has identified a reason, based on
language in Chapuran, which is supported by the evidence. Ans. 6, 17-18.
In addition, as the Examiner properly finds, both Salkini and Chapuran
present concepts and practices regarding call processing in communication
networks based on a similar state machine model. Ans. 6, 17. We further
note that the portion of Chapuran relied on by the Examiner in the rejection
suggests that the functions of state machines for originating and terminating
call processing, both taught in Salkini, can be combined into a single
processor comprising a single state machine when the calling party and
called party are served by the same service manager. Ans. 6, 16; Salkini,
col.6, l. 66 – col. 7, l. 3. Thus, the single BCSM processor comprising a
state machine capable of operating in concurrent states as taught by
Chapuran, which also appears to teach the other limitations of claim 1, is
merely a predictable variation of known elements disclosed in Salkini. See
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (“If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103 likely bars its
patentability.”). It follows that we are also not persuaded the Examiner used
impermissible hindsight in formulating the rejection.
Appeal 2010-007996
Application 10/889,908

6
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over Salkini and Chapuran. We also sustain the § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 11 and 19, which contain limitations similar
to those in claim 1 and for which Appellants have not presented separate
arguments. See App. Br. 19. Similarly, Appellants have not presented any
substantive arguments with respect to dependent claims 2, 6, 9, 10, 12-15
and 20-22 (App. Br. 19), and we therefore sustain the rejection of those
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 3 and 16
Appellants contend that the combination of Salkini and Chapuran fails
to teach or suggest a “correlation state capable of initiating transitions to the
concurrent states,” as recited in dependent claims 3 and 16. App. Br. 21;
Reply Br. 8. The Examiner relies on Salkini for this teaching, explaining
that the call processing module (CPM) in Salkini creates for each call a
session object that uses a common reference scheme to track all events
associated with a call. Ans. 8, 18-19. The Examiner interprets the session
object as representing the correlation state recited in claims 3 and 16 because
the session object is associated with state events on both the origination side
and termination side of the call, which are progressing concurrently. Ans. 8,
19. However, even if the session object in Salkini can be interpreted as a
correlation state that tracks events and states as a call progresses, we agree
with Appellants that the Examiner has not pointed to anything in Salkini
suggesting the session object is capable of initiating state transitions, as
recited in the claims. See App. Br. 8. Accordingly, we do not sustain the
Appeal 2010-007996
Application 10/889,908

7
Examiner’s rejection of claims 3 and 16, nor do we sustain the rejection of
claims 4 and 17, dependent thereon, respectively.1
Claims 5 and 18
With respect to claims 5 and 18, the Examiner finds that Salkini
discloses a number of states associated with the normal call setup process.
Ans. 9-10, 21; Salkini, col. 18, ll. 37-60. The “wait for alert” state (S4) is an
example of a normal state and is further associated with a plurality of sub-
tasks relating to call setup, including sending and receiving messages to
required system components. Ans. 10, 21; Salkini, col. 18, l. 61 – col. 19,
l. 17. The Examiner also finds that Salkini discloses an exception handling
process that is followed when a channel assignment fails. Ans. 10-11;
Salkini, col. 41, ll. 28-54. Specifically, Salkini discloses a plurality of sub-
tasks relating to channel teardown, including message sequences to release
the channel and report that the call is cleared. Ans. 11, 21-22; Salkini, col.
41, ll. 28-54. The Examiner interprets these sub-tasks as being associated
with sub-states, as recited in the claims. Ans. 11, 22.
Appellants’ statements in their briefs merely allege that the
Examiner’s findings and reasoning are unsupported, but do not provide a
convincing explanation as to why the Examiner erred. App. Br. 24; Reply
Br. 10. Thus, Appellants have not presented sufficient arguments to
persuade us that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Salkini and Chapuran teaches or suggests the recited limitations relating to
sub-tasks and sub-states. App. Br. 24; Reply Br. 10. Accordingly, we

1 Because this issue is dispositive, we do not reach Appellants’ other
contentions regarding these claims. See App. Br. 21-22; Reply Br. 6-9.
Appeal 2010-007996
Application 10/889,908

8
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over Salkini and Chapuran.
Claims 7 and 8
The Examiner relies on Salkini for teaching the disputed limitations in
claims 7 and 8. First, the Examiner finds that an A-interface message
handler (AMH) provides message processing between base station controller
and mobile switching center state machines, thus facilitating
“communication between tasks associated with at least two other states,” as
recited in claim 7. Ans. 22-23; Salkini, col. 13, ll. 62-65. The Examiner
also finds that the area in common memory allocated by the AMH to be used
for transaction processing for the duration of a call is a shared memory used
to facilitate communication between tasks, as recited in claim 8. Ans. 12,
23; Salkini, col. 31, ll. 20-31. Appellants do not sufficiently address these
findings by the Examiner and therefore have failed to persuade us that the
Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims
7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Salkini and Chapuran.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in
rejecting claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 18-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Salkini and Chapuran. We conclude, however, that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Salkini and Chapuran.

Appeal 2010-007996
Application 10/889,908

9
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-15, and 18-22 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 3, 4, 16, and 17 is reversed.
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-IN-PART

babc