Ex Parte Noldus

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

13191741 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/191,741 07/27/2011
27045 7590
ERICSSON INC
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
MIS EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
06/24/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Rogier August Noldus
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.
Pl7634-US2 4668
EXAMINER
SHEN,QUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2643
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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):
kara.coffman@ericsson.com
kathryn.lopez@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROGIER AUGUST NOLDUS
Appeal2014-004999
Application 13/191,741
Technology Center 2600
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JAMES R. HUGHES, and KAMRAN JIVANI,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-004999
Application 13/191,741
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention refunds a subscriber for the costs of a failed
short message transmission in a telecommunications network by generating
a Delivery Failure Call Detail Record (DFCDR) if a message is not
delivered. See generally Abstract; Spec. 11; Fig. 4. Claim 1 is illustrative:
1. A method for refunding the costs of a failed short
message transmission to a subscriber in a telecommunications
network, the method comprising:
receiving a short message in a Short Message Service
Center wherein the Short Message Service Center performs the
steps of;
- forwarding the short message towards a receiving
entity;
- detecting the failure of the delivery of the short
message;
- generating a Delivery Failure Call Detail Record In
the event of the failure of the delivery of the short
message, in response to determining a validity period
of the short message has expired;
- forwarding the Delivery Failure Call Detail Record;
- receiving a short message identifier associated to the
short message from a Control Node,; and
- including the short message identifier in the Delivery
Failure Call Detail Record.
THE REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1-101 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over O'Regan et al. (US 2008/0027839 Al; Jan. 31, 2008), Ear
1 Although the Examiner omits claim 10 in the statement of the rejection, the
Examiner nonetheless includes that claim in the associated discussion.
Compare Ans. 2 with Ans. 13. Accord App. Br. 5 (including claim 10 in the
obviousness rejection to be reviewed on appeal). We, therefore, present the
2
Appeal2014-004999
Application 13/191,741
(US 2005/0009500 Al; Jan. 13, 2005), 3rd Generation Partnership Project:
Tech. Spec. Grp., Telecomm. Mgm 't; Charging Mgm 't, Charging data
description for application services (Release 4), 3GPP TS 32.235 Ver. 4.0.0,
(2001) ("3GPP"), and Shaheen et al. (US 2005/0002407 Al; Jan. 6, 2005).
Ans. 2-13.2
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that 0 'Regan refunds costs of a failed short
message transmission by receiving a short message in a Short Message
Service Center (SMSC), where the SMSC (1) forwards the message towards
a receiving entity, and (2) detects failure of the message's delivery. Ans. 3.
The Examiner also finds that Ear generates a Delivery Failure Call Detail
Record (DFCDR) in the event of failure of short message delivery. Ans. 4--
5. Although the Examiner finds that Ear suggests a message's validity
period as evidenced by 3GPP, the Examiner nonetheless acknowledges that
the O'Regan/Ear system does not generate the DFCDR responsive to
determining that the message's validity period expired as claimed, and cites
Shaheen for teaching that feature. Ans. 5-6. In light of these collective
teachings, the Examiner concludes that the claim would have been obvious.
Ans. 6.
Appellant argues that 0 'Regan does not forward a short message
towards a receiving entity as the Examiner contends, but rather sends a data
correct claim listing here for clarity, and treat the Examiner's error as
harmless.
2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed August 29,
2013 ("App. Br."); (2) the Examiner's Answer mailed October 21, 2013
("Ans."); and (3) the Reply Brief filed December 19, 2013 ("Reply Br.").
3
Appeal2014-004999
Application 13/191,741
message to an SMSC, where the message remains. App. Br. 5---6. Appellant
adds that the prior art does not teach or suggest generating a DFCDR in the
event of failure of short message delivery responsive to determining that a
short message's validity period expired. App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 1-2.
According to Appellant, Shaheen merely indicates whether a report
associated with a short message-not the message itself-was received
before a timer expires. Id. Lastly, Appellant contends that the Examiner
failed to provide a sufficient rationale for combining the references as
proposed. App. Br. 7-9.
ISSUES
I. Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
that O'Regan, Ear, 3GPP, and Shaheen collectively would have taught or
suggested an SMSC that ( 1) forwards a received short message towards a
receiving entity, and (2) generates a DFCDR in the event message delivery
failed responsive to determining that the message's validity period expired?
II. Is the Examiner's proposed combination supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's
obviousness conclusion?
ANALYSIS
We begin by noting that it is undisputed that O'Regan's SMSC 20 in
Figure 3 receives a data message from a mobile phone 10. App. Br. 5---6
(acknowledging this functionality in O'Regan's paragraph 69). Appellant,
however, contends that this message is not forwarded towards a receiving
entity, but rather remains in the SMSC. App. Br. 6. But O'Regan's SMSC
4
Appeal2014-004999
Application 13/191,741
delivers the message to the intended recipient if the billing routing system 50
grants this transmission responsive to the SMSC's service request. See
O'Regan i-fi-169-70; Figs. 3--4. Upon approval of this request, the SMSC
then forwards the received message towards the receiving entity 25 as the
Examiner indicates. Ans. 14. Appellant's contention, then, that O'Regan
does not forward the message to the recipient (App. Br. 5---6) is unavailing,
for this argument ignores O'Regan's forwarding received messages to
recipients after service requests are approved.
We are also unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's reliance on Ear
and Shaheen for teaching generating a DFCDR in the event message
delivery failed responsive to determining that the message's validity period
expired. Our emphasis underscores a key aspect of this limitation, namely
determining whether the "validity period" expired-a determination that is
said to be taught by Shaheen. Ans. 5-6, 14--15.
We, therefore, construe the term "validity period" which, notably, is
not defined in the Specification-unlike other terms. 3 The Specification
notes, however, that a possible reason that a short message fails to deliver is
that the message receiver has not attached to the network within a predefined
time after the message was submitted, i.e., the message's "validity period."
Spec. 2:24--26. The Specification also explains that, after detecting short
message delivery failure in step 404 of Figure 4, the SMSC repeatedly
attempts to deliver the message towards the receiving party until the
message's "validity period" expires. Spec. 11: 13-16. Although this
description informs our understanding of a short message's "validity
3 See, e.g., Spec. 1 :27-30 (defining "Inter-Working MSC" and "Gateway
MSC").
5
Appeal2014-004999
Application 13/191,741
period," it does not define the term expressly to so limit its construction. At
best, the Specification indicates that the "validity period" is some predefined
time after message submission pertaining to the message's validity, but
provides little detail regarding this time period. We, therefore, construe the
"validity period" with its plain meaning.
The term "validation" is defined in a communications context as
"[ c ]hecking data for correctness, or compliance with applicable standards,
rules, and conventions." Gilbert Held, DICTIONARY OF COMMUNICATIONS
TECHNOLOGY 573 (3d ed. 1998). The same dictionary defines "validity
check" as "[t]he method used to check the accuracy of data after it has been
received." Id. Given these definitions and the context of the term "validity
period" in the Specification, we broadly, but reasonably, construe a short
message's "validity period" as a period of time in which the message is
checked for correctness or compliance with applicable standards, rules, and
conventions.
Based on this construction, we see no error in the Examiner's reliance
on Ear and Shaheen for collectively teaching generating a DFCDR
responsive to determining expiration of a short message's validity period.
Ans. 4--6, 14-15. To be sure, Shaheen's system in paragraph 137 returns
error information if a report associated with a short message is not received
before a timer expires-not the message itself as Appellant indicates. Reply
Br. 2. But nothing in the claim precludes the period of time that this report
is received, which, as Appellant acknowledges, reports the fate of the short
message. Id. Accord Shaheen i-fi-f 108-113 (detailing this report that is based
at least partly on error information). This time period, then, is a "validity
period" at least in that sense, for Shaheen at least suggests that the message
6
Appeal2014-004999
Application 13/191,741
is checked for correctness or compliance with applicable standards, rules,
and conventions to generate the associated report that is intended to confirm
the message's validity or invalidity in this regard. See Shaheen i-f 13 7.
Appellant's arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 2) are
unavailing, for they not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Lastly, we see no error in the Examiner's rationale to combine the
cited references as proposed. Specifically, the Examiner applied two
rationales from KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) in
this regard to yield predictable results, namely (1) using a known technique
to improve similar devices in the same way, and (2) applying a known
technique to a known device ready for the improvement. Ans. 15-16. The
Examiner's proposed combination is, therefore, supported by articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's
obviousness conclusion.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1, and claims 2-10 not argued separately with particularity.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-10 under§ 103.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 is affirmed.
7
Appeal2014-004999
Application 13/191,741
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
8