Ex Parte Lalseta et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 1, 2016

13343457 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 1, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/343,457 01/04/2012
76614 7590
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
04/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Sachin J. Lalseta
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.
ALC 3764 1023
EXAMINER
ZOUBAIR, NOURA
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2434
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2016 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp@alcatel-lucent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SACHIN J. LALSETA, HAIQING H. MA,
LUI CHU YEUNG, and ROBERT A. MANN
Appeal2014-005062
Application 13/343,457
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JON M. JURGOV AN, and
AARON W, MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-005062
Application 13/343,457
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and
formatting added):
1. A method performed by a network device for responding to
a received set of policy and charging control (PCC) rules, the method
compnsmg:
[A.] receiving the set of PCC rules at the network device from a
partner device,
wherein each PCC rule of the set of PCC rules has a
respective PCC rule identifier;
[B.] determining that the set of PCC rules includes an
unauthorized PCC rule,
wherein the unauthorized PCC rule fails an authorization;
[C.] determining that the set of PCC rules includes an
authorized PCC rule,
wherein the authorized PCC rule passes the
authorization;
[D.] generating an unauthorized rules list including the PCC
rule identifier of the unauthorized PCC rule;
[E.] generating an authorized rules list including the PCC rule
identifier of the authorized PCC rule;
[F.] transmitting the unauthorized rules list and the authorized
rules list to the partner device.
2
Appeal2014-005062
Application 13/343,457
E'xaminer;s Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by De La Cruz et al. (US 2012/0314632 Al; Dec. 13, 2012).
Appellants ' Contentions 1
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
20 because:
The Examiner has improperly equated a QoS indication as the
claimed PCC rule. In the office action, the Examiner provides
an explanation equating Cruz's "information on available
resources" as the claimed "authorized PCC rule" (office action,
pp. 7-8). The Examiner's reasoning is improper because Cruz
does not specifically transmit which rules were authorized, but
rather a Quality of Service (QoS) that could be authorized.
While a PCC rule may include QoS information, QoS
information alone is not enough to make an indication of a PCC
Rule literally present in Cruz. Simply put, QoS information
does not necessitate a PCC Rule.
App Br. 6-7.
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
20 because:
Cruz further cannot disclose PCC rule identifiers because the
QoS is not provided in the form of a PCC rule. More plainly,
one cannot have a PCC rule identifier to label something other
than a PCC rule.
App Br. 8.
1 The contentions of error we discuss are dispositive. Appellants' other
contentions of error are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2014-005062
Application 13/343,457
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-
20 because:
The office action cites Cruz as allegedly disclosing an
authorized rules list and points to paragraph [0037] which
indicates that "the report includ[ es] information on the available
resources." This falls short of disclosing a listing including an
indication of an authorized PCC rule.
App Br. 8.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1-20 as being anticipated
because De La Cruz fails to disclose the argued limitations?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments (Appeal Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to above contention 1; we disagree with Appellants' conclusion.
We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. The Examiner
correctly points out that De La Cruz teaches that "PCC rules include QoS
parameters." Ans. 7. Further as to the invention, Appellants explicitly state,
"[ v ]arious embodiments are described wherein the authorization includes
determining whether a quality of service (QoS) requested for a PCC rule is
allowable." Spec. i-f 14.
As to above contention 2, we disagree with Appellants' conclusion.
We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. See Answer 8-9.
Further, contrary to Appellants' argument that one cannot have a PCC rule
identifier to label something other than a PCC rule, whereas in De La Cruz a
QoS rule is derived from a PCC rule (i-f 18 and i-f 63), an artisan would
4
Appeal2014-005062
Application 13/343,457
recognize that the identifier of the PCC rule is equally applicable to the QoS
rule.
As to above contention 3, we agree with Appellants' conclusion that
De La Cruz's report including information on the available resources falls
short of disclosing "an unauthorized rules list including the PCC rule
identifier of the unauthorized PCC rule" or "an authorized rules list
including the PCC rule identifier of the authorized PCC rule," as required by
claim 1.
CONCLUSIONS
(1) Appellants have established that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1-20 as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) On this record, claims 1-20 have not been shown to be
unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 is reversed.
REVERSED
5