13275647 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

Ex Parte Mann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 10, 2016

13275647 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/275,647 10/18/2011 76614 7590 Terry W, Kramer, Esq, Kramer & Amado, P.C. 330 John Carlyle Street 3rd Floor Alexandria, VA 22314 08/12/2016 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Robert A. MANN 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. ALC 3767 1982 EXAMINER SALAD,ABDULLAHIELMI ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2456 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/12/2016 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): mail@krameramado.com ipsnarocp@alcatel-lucent.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT A. MANN, LUI CHU YEUNG, and HAIQING MA Appeal2015-003334 Application 13/275,647 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We have reviewed Appellants' contentions in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, the Examiner's response to Appellants' contentions, and the evidence of record. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner has failed to establish Li (US 2011/0173332 Al; July 14, 2011) discloses a "virtual IP-CAN session," as set forth in independent claims 1, 11, and 13. Appeal2014-003334 Application 13/275,647 The Examiner finds the claimed "virtual IP-CAN session" is broad enough in scope to encompass an IP-CAN session "created when a subscriber roams to foreign or roaming partner network." Ans. 3. Using this construction, the Examiner finds Li discloses, "as a result of subscriber or user equipment (UE) roaming to roaming network[,] a virtual IP-CAN session (i.e., IP-[CAN] session) is created (see fig. 4-9)." Id. We agree with Appellants that claim 1 requires a virtual IP-CAN session that is not an actual, i.e., "real," IP-CAN session created for a V-PCRN accessed by roaming user equipment. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 2. Although we agree with the Examiner that no specific definition of "virtual IP-CAN session" is provided in the Specification (Ans. 3), we agree with Appellants that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a virtual IP-CAN session, in light of the Specification, does not encompass an actual (real) IP- CAN session. Appellants' Specification and figures plainly distinguish between: (i) a V-PCRN's actual IP-CAN session providing access to a roaming UE, requested by a PCEN from the V-PCRN, and prompting an S9 session with a H-PCRN; and (ii) the H-PCRN's resulting virtual IP-CAN session prompted by the S9 session. Spec. ,-i,-i 31-38; Figs. 2-3. We further agree with Appellants (App. Br. 7-8) that Li's cited embodiments describe an actual IP-CAN session. See Li Fig. 4; ,-i 127. For the reasons stated above, Appellants persuade us the Examiner has not established Li discloses a virtual IP-CAN session. Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b) rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 11, and 13; and (2) dependent claims 2-10, 12, and 14-22. 2 Appeal2014-003334 Application 13/275,647 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-22. REVERSED 3