Ex Parte Krishnan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 18, 2013

11270481 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 18, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MADHU-KUMAR KRISHNAN,
OLIVIER MARTINOT, and GUY MATHIEU
____________

Appeal 2011-001251
Application 11/270,481
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
GREGORY J. GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judges.

GONSALVES, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001251
Application 11/270,481

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-19 (App. Br. 2). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The Invention
Exemplary claim 1 follows:
1. A method of setting up connections for access to at
least one data network by users having subscriptions
corresponding to connection profiles with main service
providers, via private networks and access networks,
comprising:

assigning a user a general user identifier for a type of
access network;

storing the general user identifier in a corresponding
relationship to the connection profile in a main memory;

connecting the user to one of said access networks,
associated with a host private network of a host service
provider, using the general user identifier;

copying at least a subset of the corresponding connection
profile stored in the main memory into an auxiliary memory of
said host private network; and

configuring said host private network, said access
network to which said user is connected and a transport
network that connects said host private network and said access
network, as a function of at least a part of said copied subset to
set up a host connection between said user and said host private
network, wherein said host private network sends billing data to
said private network of said main service provider to manage
the billing of the host connection.

Appeal 2011-001251
Application 11/270,481

3

Rejections
Claims 1-14 and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) as being
anticipated by Ogasawara (US 5,675,638 ) (Ans. 3-19).
Claims 15 and 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ogasawara in view of Chambers (US 2005/0007993 A1)
(Ans. 19-22).

ISSUES
Based upon our review of the record, the dispositive issues before us
are:
1. Does Ogasawara disclose a “host private network sends billing
data to said private network of said main service provider to manage the
billing of the host connection,” as recited in independent claim 1?
2. Does Ogasawara disclose “a second private network configured
as a host private network, communicatively coupled to the data network,” as
recited in independent claim 12?

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend that independent claim 1 is not anticipated
because Ogasawara does not disclose the claim limitation quoted above
(App. Br. 13). The Examiner found that Ogasawara., “in Figure 9, and
column 20 lines 6-18, discloses connecting a user to an access network,
copying a subset of the corresponding connection profile, and a host private
network” (Ans. 22). In response, Appellants argue that “col. 20, lines 6-18
of Ogasawara deals with using extensions numbers to connect a telephone
set with an internal/external exchange. Yet, Ogasawara is silent regarding
Appeal 2011-001251
Application 11/270,481

4
‘billing data’ as recited in claim 1” (Reply 3 (emphasis omitted)).
Appellants further argue that “none of the data entries in the user’s profile in
Ogasawara [shown in Figure 9] relate to ‘billing data’ as recited in claim 1
(id.).
Claim 1 requires that a “host private network sends billing data to said
private network of said main service provider to manage the billing of the
host connection.” However, the Examiner did not show that Ogasawara
discloses that a host private network sends billing data in the manner recited
in claim 1 (see Ans. 22-23). In particular, we cannot find any teaching in the
sections of Ogasawara referenced by the Examiner of sending of data to a
service provider to manage the billing of the host connection. Thus, we find
error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1as well
as the claims dependent from claim 1 (i.e., claims 2-11).
Appellants also contend that independent claim 12 is not anticipated
because Ogasawara does not disclose the claim limitation quoted above
(App. Br. 13). The Examiner found that Ogasawara., “in Figure 9, and
column 20 lines 6-18, discloses connecting a user to an access network,
copying a subset of the corresponding connection profile, and a host private
network” (Ans. 24).
We agree with Appellants because claim 12 requires more than just
connecting to an access network, copying a subset, and a host private
network. Rather, claim 12 requires a first and second private network, the
second private network to be configured as a host private network, and the
second private network to be communicatively coupled to the data network.
The Examiner did not show that Ogasawara discloses these three features
(see Ans. 24). Thus, we find error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection
Appeal 2011-001251
Application 11/270,481

5
of independent claim 12 as well as claims 13, 14, and 16 dependent from
claim 12. We also find error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
dependent claims 15 and 17-19 because the Examiner did not conclude that
any secondary reference teaches the claim limitations from independent
claims 1 and 12 that are missing from Ogasawara (see Ans. 20-22).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-14 and 16 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b), and claims 15 and 17-19 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

REVERSED

llw