Ex Parte Lohtia et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 30, 2014

12545374 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 30, 2014)

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.
12/545,374 08/21/2009 Anit Lohtia 4015-7242 1196
24112 7590 10/31/2014
COATS & BENNETT, PLLC
1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
LAI, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ANIT LOHTIA, BRIAN D. TROUP, and
YUQIANG TANG
____________________

Appeal 2012-006232
Application 12/545,374
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JOHN A. EVANS, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.

STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–12.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

1 The Office Action Summary indicates that claim 6 is objected to, but the
substance of the Final Rejection includes claim 6 in the double patenting
rejection. Final Rej. 5.
Appeal 2012-006232
Application 12/545,374

2
Claimed Subject Matter
The claims are directed to establishing a session in a packet-switched
wireless communications network. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for use in a packet-switched wireless
communications network, comprising:
establishing a radio connection to communicate data
between a mobile station and a radio network controller;
sending, by the radio network controller that includes at
least one processor, messages over one or more traffic channels
in the radio connection to establish a packet-switched services
session between the mobile station and the radio network
controller, wherein the messages include one or more messages
to obtain a location update of the mobile station;
determining, by the radio network controller, if all
messages including the one or more messages to obtain the
location update of the mobile station for establishing the
packet-switched services session have been exchanged between
the mobile station and the radio network controller; and
preventing the radio connection from being closed by
preventing sending of a configuration complete message from
the radio network controller to the mobile station in response to
the radio network controller determining that not all messages
including the one or more messages to obtain the location
update of the mobile station for establishing the packet-
switched services session have been exchanged between the
mobile station and the radio network controller.

Appeal 2012-006232
Application 12/545,374

3
Rejections
The Examiner maintains the following rejections of claims 1–12:
Claims 1–12 stand rejected on the ground of nonstatutory
obviousness-type double patenting. Final Rej. 5 (Nov. 5, 2010).
Claims 7–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to
nonstatutory subject matter. Final Rej. 5–6.
Claims 1–5, 7–9, 11, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Hidaka (US 2006/0183483 A1, published Aug. 17,
2006), Sayeedi (US 2003/0129980 A1, published July 10, 2003), and Dahlin
(US 5,182,753, issued Jan. 26, 1993). Final Rej. 7–11.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Hidaka, Sayeedi, Dahlin, and Ryu (US 2006/0274692 A1, published
Dec. 7, 2006). Final Rej. 11.

ANALYSIS
Double Patenting
The Final Rejection notes that the terminal disclaimer filed August 26,
2010 is not accepted because an attorney acting in a representative capacity
under 37 C.F.R. § 1.34 is not authorized to sign a terminal disclaimer, citing
37 C.F.R. § 1.321(b) and/or (c). Final Rej. 2. A second terminal disclaimer
was filed January 4, 2011 with Appellants’ Amendment After Final.
Appellants’ Appeal Brief dated June 8, 2011 states that “Appellant believes
that the double-patenting rejections of claims 1–12 . . . have been withdrawn
in view of . . . the submission of a terminal disclaimer on 4 January 2011.”
Appeal Br. 5. No substantive arguments appealing the rejection are
presented.
Appeal 2012-006232
Application 12/545,374

4
The Examiner’s Answer dated October 7, 2011 does not withdraw the
double patenting rejection, and thus maintains the rejection made in the
Final Rejection. See Ans. 4 (“Every ground of rejection set forth in the
Office action from which the appeal is taken (as modified by any advisory
actions) is being maintained by the examiner except for the grounds of
rejection (if any) listed under the subheading ‘WITHDRAWN
REJECTIONS.’”). Because Appellants do not contest the outstanding
double patenting rejection of claims 1-12 and the second terminal disclaimer
filed January 4, 2011 has been disapproved, we summarily sustain the
rejection.

Section 101
The Examiner’s Final Rejection also rejects claims 7–12 under 35
U.S.C. § 101 because the “processor-readable storage medium” in claim 7 is
defined in the Specification to include carrier waves. Final Rej. 5. The
Examiner suggests claim 7 be amended to recite “a non-transitory processor-
readable storage medium” to exclude transitory signals. Id. at 5–6. In the
Amendment After Final dated January 4, 2011, Appellants requested
amendment of claims 7–12 to recite “non-transitory” as suggested by the
Examiner. The Amendment was entered. Adv. Act. (Feb. 3, 2011).
Because the amendment appropriately limits the claims, we reverse the
rejection of claims 7–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

Section 103(a)
The dispositive issue with respect to the rejections of claims 1–5 and
7–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is whether Dahlin teaches configuration
Appeal 2012-006232
Application 12/545,374

5
message exchange over a traffic channel. Independent claim 1 requires
“sending . . . messages over one or more traffic channels in the radio
connection to establish a packet-switched services session.” Similarly,
independent claim 7 recites “send messages over the one or more traffic
channels in the radio connection to establish a packet-switched services
session with the mobile station.” The Examiner cites the Abstract and
column 2, lines 9–38 of Dahlin as teaching transmission of signaling
messages over a traffic channel to provide reliability for the channel. Ans.
7. Appellants argue, however, that the signaling messages described in
Dahlin are sent over the Fast Associated Control Channel (FACCH) or Slow
Associated Control Channel (SACCH), and that these are both clearly
control and not traffic channels. Appeal Br. 7.
The cited portion of Dahlin teaches:
In a mobile radio communications system, critical
signaling messages, e.g., handoff messages, transmitted on a
fast associated control channel and/or a slow associated control
channel belonging to a digital traffic channel, are more
heavily data protected than speech using convolutional coding
and interburst interleaving.
Dahlin, Abstract (emphasis added). The Examiner finds, because the control
channels belong to the digital traffic channel, “signals disclosed by Dahlin
are transmitted over the digital traffic channel.” Ans. 11.2

2 Elsewhere Dahlin teaches that “[t]he fast associated control channel,
FACCH, by definition replaces the speech or user data block whenever
system considerations deem it appropriate to do so.” Dahlin, col. 3, ll. 32–
35. Because the Examiner’s rejection does not rely on such a finding, we do
not consider whether, for this reason, Dahlin’s fast associated control
channel might properly be considered a traffic channel in the context of
Appellants’ invention.
Appeal 2012-006232
Application 12/545,374

6
The Examiner’s findings do not show Dahlin teaches signaling
messages transmitted over a traffic channel. A channel “belonging to a
digital traffic channel” suggests that it is a separate channel associated with
the digital traffic channel, and is not necessarily also a traffic channel. For
this reason, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–5 and 7–
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
Upon consideration of the record in light of Appellants’ contentions,
we affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–12 on the ground of
nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting, reverse the rejection of
claims 7–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 101, and reverse the rejections of claims 1–5
and 7–12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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

mls