Ex Parte Mann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 11, 2017

13482690 (P.T.A.B. May. 11, 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.
13/482,690 05/29/2012 Robert A. Mann ALC 3809 9232
76614 7590 05/15/2017
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
GIDADO, OLUWATOSIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2445
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/15/2017 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT A. MANN, PETER K. JORGENSEN,
and DARRYL JAAKKOLA
Appeal 2017-000277
Application 13/482,690
Technology Center 2400
JOHNNY A. KUMAR, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and STEVEN M.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s Non-Final Rejection of claims 1, 3—8, and 10—20. Claims 2 and
9 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A method performed by a Diameter Routing Agent (DRA)
for processing a Diameter message, the method comprising:
receiving a first Diameter message at the DRA from a first
origin device;
Appeal 2017-000277
Application 13/482,690
determining a first message type associated with the first
Diameter message, wherein the message type is based on a
Diameter application type and a Diameter command type of the
first Diameter message;
identifying a first set of rules of a plurality of sets of rules
as being associated with the first message type;
evaluating a first rule of the first set of rules; and
transmitting a message based on the evaluation of the first
rule.
REJECTION AT ISSUE1
Claims 1, 3—8, and 10-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over McCann (US 8,532,110 B2; iss. Sept. 10,
2013) in view of Craig (US 2011/0202676 Al; publ. Aug. 18, 2011).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
Appellants have presented several arguments as to why the
combination of the references does not teach or suggest the features recited
in the rejected claims.2
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’
arguments. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to each
argument presented by the Appellants on pages 3 through 5 of the Answer.
1 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Non-Final Office Action (“Non-
Final Act.”) (mailed Nov. 20, 2015), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
(mailed Sept. 1, 2016) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the
Examiner.
2 We refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) (dated Apr. 21, 2016), and the
Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) (dated Sept. 23, 2016) for the positions of the
Appellants.
2
Appeal 2017-000277
Application 13/482,690
We have reviewed this response and concur with the Examiner’s findings
and conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Non-Final Office 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. Non-Final Act. 3—5; Ans.
3—5. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis
as follows.
Appellants contend “McCann and Craig do not teach wherein the
message type is based on a Diameter application type and a Diameter
command type of the first Diameter” because the McCann and Craig
systems are “incompatible.” App. Br. 6—7 (emphasis omitted).
The Examiner finds “it would have been obvious to the one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the system of
McCann in light of Craig in other [sic] to provide a system for origin routing
at a diameter node (Craig abstract).” Non-Final Act. 4 (emphasis omitted).
The U.S. Supreme Court has held that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The Court further instructs that:
[o]ften it will be necessary for a court to look to interrelated
teachings of multiple patents;... and the background knowledge
possessed by a person having ordinary skill in the art, all in order
to determine whether there was an apparent reason for combining
the known elements in a the fashion claimed by the patent at
issue.
Id. at 418.
Additionally, the Court instructs that:
3
Appeal 2017-000277
Application 13/482,690
[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal
conclusion of obviousness .... [Hjowever, the analysis need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter
of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the
inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the
art would employ.
Id. (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).
We find that at the time of the invention it would have been within the
ordinarily skilled artisan’s technical grasp to fit the teachings of McCann
and Craig (including established knowledge in the art) together like pieces of
a puzzle to predictably result in the disputed limitations. We conclude the
proffered combination of McCann and Craig would predictably provide
origin routing at a diameter node. See, e.g., Non-Final Act. 4. We note
Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6—7) do not explain why the Examiner’s
motivational statement does not suffice as an articulated reason with a
rational underpinning to support the proffered combination, and thus, these
arguments are not persuasive of Examiner error.
Regarding Appellants’ contention that in “Craig no entire rule set may
be associated with a message type” (App. Br. 9) (emphasis omitted),
Appellants’ contention is not commensurate in scope with the claim
language because “entire rule set” is not recited in the claims.
Thus, we are not persuaded of Examiner error. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 3—8, and 10-20.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3—8, and 10—20 is
affirmed.
4
Appeal 2017-000277
Application 13/482,690
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