Ex Parte MoDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 18, 201110941995 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 18, 2011) Copy Citation 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. Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation