Ex Parte Mo

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 18, 2011

10941995 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 18, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JIAJUN MO
____________

Appeal 2009-010565
Application 10/941,995
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 The Examiner has noted claims 4-7 are allowed (Ans. 4).
Appeal 2009-010565
Application 10/941,995

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s claimed invention is directed to a network architecture of
a packet switch data service (Spec. 1:17-20).
Independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A network architecture of a packet switch data service of a
CDMA Intelligent Network (IN) user, said architecture
comprising:

a Mobile Switch Center (MSC) and a Service Control Point
(SCP) for authorizing users;

a Base Station Center (BSC), a Packet Control Function (PCF)
and a Packet Data Service Network (PDSN), wherein said MSC
carrying out data exchanges; and

wherein a billing interface (PCF-SCP) is provided between said
PCF and said SCP.

REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claim 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) based upon
the teachings of Naim (US 2002/0050680A1).

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Naim teaches PCFs 332 and 337 connected to a
billing system 358 via MSC 308 and SCP 342. Thus, Naim’s billing system
is “clearly connected to the PCF and SCP regardless of the order of
arrangement.” (Ans. 5-6). The Examiner also finds the claim does not
Appeal 2009-010565
Application 10/941,995

3
require the billing interface to be directly connected between the PCF and
SCP (Ans. 6).
Appellant contends Naim does not teach a “billing interface between
the PCF and the SCP” (App. Br. 10).2 We agree with Appellant that Naim
does not teach the billing interface between the PCF and SCP as claimed.
Thus, for the reasons set forth by Appellant that Naim does not teach every
element of Appellant’s claimed invention (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 8-9,
claims 1- 3 are not anticipated by Naim.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-3 is reversed.

REVERSED

rwk

2 The Supplemental Appeal Brief filed July 22, 2008, is referenced herein.