13950984 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2017)

Ex Parte LEIS et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 10, 2017

13950984 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 10, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office 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. 13/950,984 07/25/2013 Peter EELS 089229.00733 7884 32294 7590 02/14/2017 Squire PB (NVA/DC Office) 8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE 14TH FLOOR VIENNA, VA 22182-6212 EXAMINER BASSETT, DANIEL G ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/14/2017 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): IPGENER ALTY C @ SQUIREpb.COM SONIA. WHITNEY @ SQUIREpb.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PETER LEIS, and JIADONG SHEN Appeal 2016-006690 Application 13/950,984 Technology Center 2600 Before STEPHEN C. SIU, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Final Rejection of claims 1—22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-006690 Application 13/950,984 Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows: 1. A method, implemented by a service- centralization-&-continuity application server (SCC AS), comprising: receiving an identifier from an access-transfer-control- function (ATCF) entity; transmitting a message to the ATCF entity, the message comprises the identifier to verify by the ATCF entity that the SCC AS is authorized to send the transmitted message; and receiving a response that the ATCF entity verified that the SCC AS is authorized to send the transmitted message. Rejections Claims 1—5 and 12—16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group Core Network and Terminals; IP Multimedia (IM) Core Network (CN) subsystem IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Service Continuity; Stage 3 (Release 11), 3GPP TS 24.237 VI 1.4.0 (2012-09) Technical Specification, 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP™) (hereinafter “3GPP”), in view of Edge et al., (US 2012/0202447 Al; pub. Aug. 9, 2012) (hereinafter “Edge”). Claims 6—11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP 24.237 in view of Sedlacek et al. (US 8,509,120 B2; iss. Aug. 13, 2013), (hereinafter “Sedlacek ’120”) and Edge. Claims 17—22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP 24.237 in view of Sedlacek (US 2013/0028179 Al; pub. Jan. 31, 2013) (hereinafter “Sedlacek ’179”), and Edge. 2 Appeal 2016-006690 Application 13/950,984 ANALYSIS1 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’ arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. Ans. 2—18. We highlight and address specific arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellants contend that the S-CSCF in the 3GPP reference does not correspond to the claimed ATCF. App. Br. 11—12. The Examiner finds, and we agree: 3GPP Figure A.3.3-1 shows in steps 11, 12, and 17, a SIP REGISTER message being sent from the ATCF to the 1-CSCF to the S-CSCF and to the SCC AS. Further, the ATCF adds the ATCF URI to the Path of the SIP REGISTER message, as described on page 150. Although the SIP REGISTER message is not directly sent from the ATCF to the SSC AS, the ATCF URI added by at the ATCF is included in the message received from the S-CSCF, and therefore the ATCF URI is an identifier sent indirectly from the ATCF to the SCC AS. (Ans. 3) (emphasis added) 1 Independent claim 12 presents the same dispositive issues as independent claim 21. Reply Br. 5. Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—5, 7—11, and 13—22; except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further. 3 Appeal 2016-006690 Application 13/950,984 The Examiner also finds and we agree: the message comprising the identifier to verity by the ATCF entity that the SCC AS is authorized to send the transmitted message, 3 GPP pages 29-30 disclose that the ATCF receives a SIP MESSAGE request with SRVCC-related information and if the URI in the P-Asserted-Identity header field of the SIP MESSAGE request does not identify an SCC AS authorized to provide the SRVCC-related information, to reject the request and not send the ATGW information. Further, the URIs of SCC ASs authorized to provide SRVCC-related information need to be specified in the roaming agreement. Therefore, the P- Asserted-Identity URI is used to verify that the SCC AS is authorized by determining if it is specified in the roaming agreement. (Ans. 10) (emphasis added) In the Reply Brief, Appellants contend “’ATCF URI’ and ‘P- Asserted-Service: SCC AS URI’ of 3GPP are two entirely different identifiers.” Reply Br. 3. In particular, the Appellants contend: “ATCF URF’ of 3 GPP has a value of “sip :termsdgfdfwe@atcf. visited2.net,” while “P-Asserted- Service: SCC AS URI” of 3GPP has a value of “sip:sccasl.homel.net,” and thus “ATCF URI” and “P-Asserted- Service: SCC AS URI” are two entirely different identifiers that identify different entities. Therefore, because 3GPP discloses, at most, receiving/transmitting two entirely different identifiers, 3 GPP does not disclose receiving an identifier from an ATCF entity, and transmitting a message that includes the received identifier. (Reply Br. 4) 4 Appeal 2016-006690 Application 13/950,984 The Appellants’ arguments are not in commensurate with the scope of the claims because the claims do not preclude transmission of additional identifiers. Regarding claim 1, while Appellants raised additional arguments for patentability (App. Br. 13—16), we find that the Examiner has rebutted each and every one of those arguments supported by sufficient evidence. Ans. 4— 5. Therefore, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and underlying reasoning, which are incorporated herein by reference. Regarding claim 6, although Appellants raise additional arguments for patentability (App. Br. 21—24), we find that the Examiner has rebutted each and every one of those arguments supported by sufficient evidence. Ans. 9— 11. We have considered Appellants’ Reply Brief but find it unpersuasive in rebutting the Examiner’s responses. Accordingly, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1—22 under § 103. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1—22. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED. 5