Ex Parte Lovsen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 12, 2016

13348780 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/348,780 01112/2012
6449 7590 09/14/2016
ROTHWELL, FIGG, ERNST & MANBECK, P,C
607 14th Street, N.W.
SUITE 800
WASHINGTON, DC 20005
LarsLOVSEN
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.
3602-400 8903
EXAMINER
ASEFA, DEBEBE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/14/2016 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):
PTO-PAT-Email@rfem.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LARS LOVSEN, SUSANA FERNANDEZ ALONSO, and
MARIA BELEN P ANCORBO MARCOS
Appeal2015-005359
Application 13/348,780
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN P. PINKERTON, CARLL. SILVERMAN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOW ARD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-19, which constitute all of the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-005359
Application 13/348,780
THE INVENTION
The disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a
telecommunications network with multiple bearer support when the network
is congested.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An infrastructure node for handling bearer
establishment in a telecommunications network comprising
a processing unit;
a receiving unit; and
a transmitting unit;
wherein the processing unit is arranged to:
receive, using the receiving unit, an indication of
session establishment for a bearer from a bearer binding
function unit,
obtain profile information with Quality of Service,
QoS, information about maximum bit rate, MBR, and
guaranteed bit rate, GBR, related to the bearer,
determine that the MBR is larger than the GBR,
make a policy decision, and
transmit, using the transmitting unit, an
acknowledgement of session establishment to the bearer
binding function unit with an indicator that a separate
bearer is to be established.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence in rejecting the
claims on appeal is:
Baillargeon US 2004/0052212 Al Mar. 18,2004
Bhalla US 2011/0080870 Al Apr. 7, 2011
Cutler US 2011/0320620 Al Dec. 29, 2011
Siddam US 2012/0002540 Al Jan. 5,2012
2
Appeal2015-005359
Application 13/348,780
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-7 and 9-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Siddam in view of Baillargeon. Final Act. 5-14.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Siddam in view of Baillargeon and Cutler. Final Act. 14--
15.
Claims 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Siddam in view of Baillargeon and Bhalla. Final Act. 15-
17.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner erred. In reaching this decision, we have
considered all evidence presented and all arguments made by Appellants.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding claims 12-19.
However, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments regarding claims 1-
1 1.
Claims 1-11
Appellants argue Siddam does not teach or suggest a processor
arranged to "determine that the MBR [(maximum bit rate)] is larger than the
GBT [(guaranteed bit rate)]," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br.
2-5. According to the Appellants, although Siddam teaches determining a
requested QoS is greater than a QoS limit, it does suggest comparing a
maximum bit rate to a guaranteed bit rate:
3
Appeal2015-005359
Application 13/348,780
Rather, Siddam discloses determining whether the "requested
QoS [i.e., the requested bandwidth] plus the bandwidth already
in use is greater than the QoS limit retrieved from the SPR 108."
See Siddam at paragraph [0040]. The QoS limit is not a
Guaranteed Bit Rate (GBR). Rather, the QoS limit is simply the
Maximum Allowed Bandwidth. Thus, at most Siddam disclose
determining that the requested bandwidth plus the bandwidth in
use is larger than a Maximum Allowed Bandwidth. However,
nowhere does Siddam teach or suggest determining that the
Maximum Bit Rate (MBR) is greater than the Guaranteed Bit
Rate (GBR).
App. Br. 6.
The Examiner finds Siddam teaches "the maximum allowed rate is
greater than currently in-use bit rate, the QoS negotiation is the deciding
factor for bandwidth allocation, and if the QoS is not supported, the request
will be rejected, since due to quality issue the allowed bit rate is less than the
requested bit rate." Final Act. 6 (citing Siddam Figs. 3, 4) (emphasis
omitted); Ans. 4--5 (citing Siddam Figs. 3, 4, i-fi-138, 39). According to the
Examiner, that maps to the "determine that the MBR is larger than the GBR"
limitation recited in claim 1. Id.
Although Figure 4 teaches determining if the Requested QoS plus the
amount in use is greater than the SPR QoS limit (Siddam Fig. 4 item 408),
there is nothing in the cited sections of Siddam that shows that those values
correspond to the MBR or the GBR. To the contrary, Siddam draws a
distinction between the QoS Negotiation AVP, and the QoS Upgrade AVP,
the MBR and the GBR. See Siddam i1 39. Accordingly, we are persuaded
by Appellants' argument that the Examiner erred.
4
Appeal2015-005359
Application 13/348,780
Because we agree with at least one of the dispositive arguments
advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants' other
arguments.
Therefore, based on the record before us, we reverse the Examiner's
rejection of claim 1, along with the rejections of claim 9, which recites a
limitation commensurate in scope to the disputed limitation discussed above,
and dependent claims 2-8, 10, and 11.
Claims 12-19
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Baillargeon teaches a
processing unit arranged to "determine from the acknowledgement of
session establishment if a separate bearer is to be established for the
session," as recited in claim 12. App. Br. 9-10; Reply Br. 7-8. Appellants
argue the cited sections of Baillargeon merely teach "that congestion
information can be signaled by placing a congestion indicator in the header
of a packet." App. Br. 10. According to Appellants, however, there is
nothing that suggests the "determine" limitation recited in claim 12. Id.
The Examiner finds Baillargeon teaches determining if a separate
bearer is to be established and, if so, establishing the separate bearer. Final
Act. 12 (citing Baillargeon i-fi-128, 72, Fig. 1). More specifically, the
Examiner finds Baillargeon teaches that if "the packet gateway does not
reject traffic data due to congestion, instead it sends an indication of the
congestion (via ECN) so that the wireless network controller can either slow
down the traffic or select another packet gateway of establishing new
communication session." Final Act. 12 (citing Baillargeon i172) (emphasis
omitted).
5
Appeal2015-005359
Application 13/348,780
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the Examiner
erred. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation while reading claim language in light of the specification as it
would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of
Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). An applicant may,
however, act as his or her own lexicographer and specifically define a claim
term in the Specification. In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir.
1994). Absent an express intent to impart a novel meaning to a claim term,
the words take on the ordinary and customary meanings attributed to them
by those of ordinary skill in the art. Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive
Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
According to the Specification, "[an] IP-CAN bearer is an IP
transmission path of defined capacity, delay, and bit error rate, etc." and that
"[a]n IP-CAN session incorporates one or more IP-CAN bearers." Spec.
i-f 13. Accordingly, we conclude that the claim limitation "bearer" is broad
enough to encompass a separate IP transmission path.
Baillargeon teaches that "[a] congestion condition is indicated by
sending an indication contained in packets that are communicated in an
established communication session." Baillargeon i-f 28. Baillargeon further
teaches that in the event of congestion conditions, the wireless network
controller "can either slow down or select another packet gateway for
establishing new calls or communications sessions." Baillargeon i-f 72
(emphasis added). Selecting another packet gateway involves selecting a
new IP pathway-that is a separate bearer. Accordingly, Baillargeon
teaches a congestion condition indication (paragraph 28) that is used to
6
Appeal2015-005359
Application 13/348,780
determine whether or not a separate bearer is to be established. Therefore,
we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred.
Claim 14 contains substantially the same limitation as claim 12. See
App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x). Although the Examiner relied on the same
combination of references (Siddam and Baillargeon) in rejecting claims 12
and 14, the Examiner used a different mapping in claim 14 to find the prior
art teaches the determine/determining limitation. Compare Final Act. 11-12
(claim 12 rejection), with Final Act. 14 (claim 14 rejection). Regardless, for
the same reasons discussed above for claim 12, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' arguments that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 14.
Accordingly, we affirm the rejection of claims 12 and 14, along with
the rejections of claims 13, 15, and 16, which are not separately argued.
Additionally, we similarly affirm the rejection of claims 17-19, which
depend directly or indirectly from claims 12 or 14, and which are also not
separately argued.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 1-11.
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner's decisions rejecting
claims 12-19.
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-IN-PART
7