Ex Parte Majd et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2017

13335108 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 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.
13/335,108 12/22/2011 Casern Majd JCE-5524-65 6769
96355 7590 03/23/2017
NIXON & VANDERHYE, P.C. / Vonage
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
KASSIM, KHALED M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2017 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CASEM MAJD, PAUL BEYER, ANDREW BUCKO,
ROHAN DWARKHA, NIRAV J. KADAKIA, and
STEPHEN VANSADERS
Appeal 2016-004209
Application 13/335,108
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CARL L. SILVERMAN, and JAMES W.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-004209
Application 13/335,108
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
12—28. This application was subject to a restriction requirement and claims
1—11 remain unelected and withdrawn from consideration. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
The claims are directed to a systems and methods of integrating call
detail record information from multiple sources. Claim 12, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
12. A method of correlating a plurality of call detail records
(CDRs) relating to a single telephony communication in an
Internet protocol (IP) system, comprising:
receiving a first CDR that contains information about the
telephony communication from a first logical element;
receiving a second CDR that contains information about
the telephony communication from a second logical element,
each of the first and second CDRs include an ingress
identification code and an egress identification code; and
matching at least one of the ingress identification code or
the egress identification code of the first CDR to at least one of
the ingress identification code or the egress identification code
of the second CDR to determine that the first and second CDRs
relate to the same telephony communication.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
REFERENCES
appeal is:
Wang et al.
Lee et al.
US 2005/0246205 Al
US 2009/0274037 Al
Nov. 3, 2005
Nov. 5, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-004209
Application 13/335,108
Kung et al. US 2010/0128860 A1
Eslambolchi et al. US 7,773,727 B1
May 27, 2010
Aug. 10, 2010
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 12—14, 17, 20-23, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dowens in view of Eslambolchi.
Claims 15, 18, 24, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dowens in view of Eslambolchi and further in view
of Wang.
Claims 16, 19, 25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Dowens in view of Eslambolchi and further in view
of Kung.
Appellants argue independent claims 12, 20, and 21 together. (App.
Br. 9). Therefore, we select independent claim 12 as the representative
claim for the group and will address Appellants’ arguments thereto.
In this decision, we have considered only those arguments actually
made by Appellants. Arguments which Appellants could have made but did
not make in the Brief have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
With respect to representative independent claim 12, Appellants
contend:
Independent claim 12 (and similarly independent claims 20 and
21) recites “matching at least one of the ingress identification
code or the egress identification code of the first CDR to at least
one the ingress identification code or the egress identification
code of the second CDR to determine that the first and second
CDRs relate to the same telephony communication ” (emphasis
ANALYSIS
3
Appeal 2016-004209
Application 13/335,108
added). Neither Dowens nor Eslambolchi disclose or suggest
such features.
(App. Br. 11).
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions and agree with the
Examiner’s finding that:
claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation.
First, [0]ne cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on
combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208
USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). With that being said. As
previously explained in the previous office action, Dowens
already discloses a CDRs information including ingress and
egress addresses (identification codes) (see Dowens 1 s 0044,
0035) and also Dowens discloses comparing the ingress and
egress addresses (See Dowens []f] s 0044 and 0035, describing
the correlation engine compares the ingress and egress
address fields of each of said CDRs for a call). The examiner
agrees that Dowens does not appear to explicitly disclose
determining that the first and second CDRs relate to the same
telephony communication. To support the shortcomings of
Dowens, Eslambolchi was introduced. [Ejslambolchi discloses
determining that the first and second CDRs relate to the same
telephony communication (See Eslambolchi Fig. 4 and Col 4,
lines 54 - 67; describing analyzing CDRs information to
determine records related to same attempted call or calls).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Dowens and
Eslambolchi before him or her, to modify the invention of
Dowens to use the egress and ingress addresses (identification
codes), which determined by Dowens, to determine whether
CDRs information related to the same communication and
analyze them and taught by Eslambolchi. The suggestion for
doing so would have been because call detail records include
various pieces of information regarding the call, including
metrics which might be deemed to be related to the quality of the
service associated with the given call. It would be beneficial if
4
Appeal 2016-004209
Application 13/335,108
there was provided a system for harvesting the quality of service
metrics which are available so as to enhance the predictive
maintenance of the VoIP network. Thus, the combination of
Dowens and Eslambolchi meets the scope of the claimed
limitation as currently presented.
(Ans. 2—3). Moreover, we agree with the Examiner the Dowens
reference teaches and fairly suggests the comparison of the matching
of ingress/egress identification codes between first and second CDRs.
Although Appellants contend that the Dowens reference provides a
comparison to a “list,” we find the Dowens reference teaches and
suggests that:
the current invention also creates a “correlation engine list” in
the correlation engine that contains the list of network elements
(routers, switches, application servers, etc.) connected to each
correlation engine. Table-2 provides an illustrative table for a
correlation engine list. The switches and application servers
sending CDRs to each correlation engine are listed. The
addresses of network elements may be provided in any form the
service provider deems identifiable. For example, IP addresses
of the network elements, port identification, etc. may be used.
Note that each correlation engine is made aware of the list of
network elements sending CDRs to all correlation engines (to
itself and other correlation engines). That means, the correlation
engine list is replicated across all correlation engines.
(Ans. 3). We find paragraph 24 of the Dowens reference indicates
that the correlation engine list is created in the correlation engine
which teaches and suggests that the various elements of the system
necessarily provide the corresponding data to generate the list.
Consequently, the list is a representation of the corresponding CDR’s
and their ingress/egress identification codes.
5
Appeal 2016-004209
Application 13/335,108
Appellants further contend that even if the Eslambolchi reference
were:
combined with Dowens, the combination of references still lacks
the requisite nexus showing that the determination of whether
two (or more) CDRs relate to a same phone call is made based
on a matching of ingress/egress identification codes between first
and second CDRs.
(Reply Br. 3). We disagree with Appellants.
Merely reciting the language of the claim is insufficient. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (“A statement which merely points out what a claim
recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the
claim.”). Merely alleging that the references fail to support an obviousness
rejection is insufficient to persuade us of Examiner error. Attorney
arguments and conclusory statements that are unsupported by factual
evidence are entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,
1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed.
Cir. 1984); and Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, 2009 WF 2477843 slip
op. at 7—8 (BPAI Aug. 10, 2009) (informative), available at
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/dcom/bpai/its/fd09004693.pdf.
Here, we find Appellants’ arguments are conclusory in nature and fail
to address the thrust of the Examiner’s obviousness rejections.
Consequently, Appellants repeating the claim language and
contending that the Dowens reference does not compare the CDR’s
ingress and egress is not persuasive of error in the Examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 12.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 12, 20, and 21. Further, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
6
Appeal 2016-004209
Application 13/335,108
claims 13,16—19, 22, and 25—28, which depend therefrom and were not
argued separately. See App. Br. 16.
Claims 14 and 23
With respect to dependent claims 14 and 23, Appellants argue
the claims together. (App. Br. 16). We select claim 14 as the
representative claim for the group. Appellants contend that the
Eslambolchi reference fails to disclose that the matching step is based
on a time that the first and second CDRs were created. (App. Br. 16).
The Examiner maintains that:
claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation. As
explained above, [EJslambolchi discloses determining that the
first and second CDRs relate to the same telephony
communication (See Eslambolchi Fig. 4 and Col 4, lines 54-67;
describing analyzing CDRs information to determine
records related to same attempted call or calls).
[EJslambolchi also discloses analyzing plurality of call detail
records (CDRs) to determine if a particular call processing code
has occurred a predetermined number of times during a
previously defined time interval (See abstract). Moreover,
[EJslambolchi discloses analyzing the analyzing the multiple
call detail records, the CDR OS detects multiple calls from a
first party to a second party over a first time interval (Col 3,
lines 35-45). Thus, clearly [EJslambolchi disclose comparing
CDRs information based on determine CDRs occurred during a
time interval. Thus, the combination of Dowens and
Eslambolchi meets the scope of the claimed limitation as
currently presented.
(Ans. 3—4). We agree with the Examiner that the combination of the
Dowens and Eslambolchi references meets the limitations of the invention as
recited in the broad language of dependent claim 14. We find Appellants’
general arguments for patentability to be unpersuasive of error in the
7
Appeal 2016-004209
Application 13/335,108
Examiner’s factual findings or conclusion of obviousness of dependent
claim 14 and dependent claim 23 grouped therewith.
Claims 15 and 24
With respect to dependent claims 15 and 24, Appellants argue the
claims together. (App. Br. 17). We select claim 15 as the representative
claim for the group. Appellants contend:
Wang discloses a system for constructing a regional medical data
exchange infrastructure. Wang describes registering patients in
an organization and assigning them a unique global identification
code or global master patience index. See paragraph [0044] of
Wang. Wang is not at all directed telephony communication and
does not at all describe recording a global identification code into
either first or second call detail records (CDRs). As Wang is
directed to a health care infrastructure system, and not at all
related to telephony communications, Wang is also non-
analogous art with respect to the Dowens and Eslambolchi
references. Thus, not only does Wang fail to disclose the features
recited in claims 15 and 24, one of ordinary skill would not have
been motivated to combine Wang with either Dowens or
Eslambolchi. Consequently, Wang would not describe
“recording a global identification code into each of the first and
second CDRs.” as required by dependent claims 15 and 24.
(App. Br. 17—18). We disagree with Appellants. The Examiner provides a
further detailed explanation as to the limited teachings of the Wang
reference for the global identifier. (Ans. 4—6).
Appellants continue to dispute the Examiner’s reliance upon the
Wang reference for the global identifier in the Reply Brief. Appellants
contend the global identification code is not taught or suggested to be
recorded into a CDR. (Reply Br. 5—6). We disagree with the Appellants
8
Appeal 2016-004209
Application 13/335,108
because we agree with the Examiner that it would have been readily
apparent to those skilled in the art to apply the global identifier to the
combination of the Dowens and Eslambolchi references.
The Examiner’s findings and conclusion are reasonable because the
skilled artisan would “be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together
like pieces of a puzzle” since the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary
creativity, not an automaton.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
420—21 (2007). Appellants do not present adequate evidence that the
resulting arrangements would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an unobvious step over
the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157,
1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418—19). Appellants have
not shown error in the Examiner’s factual findings or the conclusion of
obviousness of dependent claim 15 and dependent claim 24 grouped
therewith.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 12—28 based upon
obviousness.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims
12—28 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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).
9
Appeal 2016-004209
Application 13/335,108
AFFIRMED
10