Ex Parte Khasnabish

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2016

12336608 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/336,608 12/17/2008
25537 7590 05/13/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bhumip Khasnabish
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.
20080363 2225
EXAMINER
FOUD, HICHAM B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/13/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BHUMIP KHASNABISH
Appeal 2014-008301 1
Application 12/336,608
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Verizon Communications
Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2014-008301
Application 12/336,608
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-23. Reply Br. 1. Claims 7 and
14 have been canceled. Claims App. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We reverse.
Appellant's Invention
Appellant's invention is directed to a method and system for allowing
a registered user to utilize a variety of user devices ( 101, 103, 105, 107)
during a communication session to access information and services at a
remote provider via a network core (127). Spec. i-f 14, Fig. 1. In particular,
the network core (127) stores a user profile (311) including user
authentication information, and a device service profile specifies a certain
time period the user devices can be used such that the user can access the
services according to control service settings specified by the user. Id. at i-fi-1
19-20.
Representative Claim
Independent claim 1 is representative, and reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
initiating a communication session between a user device and a target device
for utilizing a network communication service via the target device or in
communicating with the target device, wherein the communication session is
initiated via a core network;
utilizing, by the user device, the network communication service via the
2
Appeal2014-008301
Application 12/336,608
communication session, wherein the communication session is controlled
based on one or more user profiles reflecting one or more service protocols
of the user device, service protocols of the network communication service
and one or more attributes for the communication session, wherein the one
or more user profiles are stored in the core network remote from any user
device; and
adapting transmission signaling of the communication session to be
compatible with at least one of the service protocols of the user device and
with the service protocols of the network communication service, and to
facilitate the communication session and the utilization by the user device of
the network communication service, wherein the core network is not ad-hoc
network, and wherein the stored one or more user profiles include a
registered user, each user device of the registered user that can be used
during the communication session regardless of whether or not said each
user device of the registered user is currently participating in the
communication session, and the desired service control settings for the
registered user and for said each user device of the registered user that can
be used during the communication session including a device service profile
specifying a certain time period that said each user device can be used.
Zhao
Rodriguez
Du
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2004/0143669 Al
US 7,120,922 B2
US 2007/0010231 Al
3
Jul. 22, 2004
Oct. 10, 2006
Jan. 11, 2007
Appeal2014-008301
Application 12/336,608
Mac Innis US 8,331,294 B2
Rejections on Appeal
Dec. 11, 2012
The Examiner rejects the claims on appeal as follows:
Claims 1, 3, 6, 8-12, 15, 18, 19, and 21-23 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofMacinnis and
Rodriguez.
Claims 2, 4, 13, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as
being unpatentable over the combination ofMacinnis, Rodriguez, and Zhao.
Claims 5 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Maclnnis, Rodriguez, and Du.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellant's arguments seriatim as they are presented in
... • .. ~ • " / -1 -1 .. ... T""ll. .. ~ • " " /,.., me Appeal tiner, pages 0---11, ana me Kep1y tiner, pages L---O. ~
Dispositive Issue: Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, did the Examiner err in
finding the combination of Maclnnis and Rodriguez teaches or suggests
storing a user profile in the core network remote from any user device, as
recited in independent claim 1?
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed March 3, 2014), the Reply Brief (filed July
23, 2014), and the Answer (mailed June 4, 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 )(1 )(vii).
4
Appeal2014-008301
Application 12/336,608
Appellant argues the combination of Macinnis and Rodriguez does
not teach or suggest the disputed limitation emphasized above. App. Br. 6-
11; Reply Br. 2-6. In particular, Appellant argues although Mcinnis
discloses that the handheld wireless communication device (HWCD) stores
information corresponding to the user profiles, the HWCD does not teach a
core network. App. Br. 9 (citing Macinnis 9:26-33.) That is, Macinnis
discloses storing the user profiles on a user device (HWCD), as opposed to
in a remote core network, as in the disputed limitation. Id. This argument is
persuasive.
As correctly noted by the Examiner, Macinnis discloses that the
HWCD may be used as a router in an ad hoc network including a WLAN, a
base station, and an access point, such that the HWCD stores locally
available resources along with the types of networks a user may access.
Ans. 9, 10 (citing ivicinnis 9:18-24, 31-36, 62---65, 10:30-37, 46, 57-58).
However, we do not agree with the Examiner that Macinnis' disclosure of
the HWCD performing transcoding functions as part of the ad hoc network
somehow teaches the core network. Id. In fact, Macinnis indicates that the
transcoding functions are performed locally. (Mclnnis 10:57-58.) Further,
even if such functions were performed on the ad hoc network, it would
vitiate the claim language, which explicitly precludes the core network from
being an ad hoc network. Therefore, we agree with Appellant that
Macinnis' disclosure of storing user profiles on a user device falls short of
teaching storing such data in the remote core network. Because Appellant
has shown at least one reversible in the Examiner's rejection, we need not
5
Appeal2014-008301
Application 12/336,608
reach Appellant's remaining arguments. We therefore do not sustain the
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2---6, 8-13, and 15-23, which also
recite the disputed limitations.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1---6, 8-13, and 15-23,
as set forth above.
REVERSED
6