Ex Parte Palat et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2013

11618234 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2013)

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.
11/618,234 12/29/2006 Sudeep K. Palat 2100.036000 5482
7590 07/30/2013
TERRY D. MORGAN
Williams, Morgan & Amerson, P.C.
Suite 1100
10333 Richmond
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
SAMS, MATTHEW C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SUDEEP K. PALAT, SAID TATESH, ALESSIO CASATI, and
CHRISTOPHE DEMAREZ
____________________

Appeal 2011-001474
Application 11/618,234
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before THU A. DANG, JAMES R. HUGHES, and JEFFERY S. SMITH,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-001474
Application 11/618,234

2
I. STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)
(2008).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to wireless
communication systems (Spec. 2, ll. 8-9).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method for controlling a handover from a Voice over
Internet Protocol (VoIP) call to a Circuit Switched (CS) call,
wherein the VoIP call is supported by a first radio access
network coupled to a mobility management entity (MME) and
the CS call is supported by a second radio access network
coupled to a mobile switching center (MSC), the method
comprising:

receiving, at the MME, a CS call control message
transmitted by a mobile unit in a packet switched message;

routing the CS call control message from the MME to the
MSC over an interface between the MME and the MSC; and

initiating, from the MSC, a handover of the VoIP call to
the CS call using the CS call control message.

Appeal 2011-001474
Application 11/618,234

3
C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Ejzak US 6,721,565 B1 Apr. 13, 2004

Saifullah US 2007/0005803 A1 Jan. 4, 2007

Kant US 2007/0014281 A1 Jan. 18, 2007

Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the teachings of Ejzak and Saifullah.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
the teachings of Ejzak, Saifullah, and Kant.

II. ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that Ejzak, in combination with Saifullah, discloses or would have
suggested “routing the CS call control message from the MME to the MSC”
and “initiating, from the MSC, a handover” (claim 1) (emphasis added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Ejzak
1. Ejzak discloses handover of wireless calls between systems
supporting circuit and packet call models, wherein system 110 comprises a
Base Station System (BSS) 142, a Serving General Packet Radio Service
(GPRS) Support Node (SGSN) 146, a Gateway GPRS Support Node
Appeal 2011-001474
Application 11/618,234

4
(GGSN) 148, a Media Gateway (MG) 150, a Call State Control Function
(CSCF) 152, and a Media Gateway Control Function/Transport Signaling
Gateway (MGCF/T-SGW) 154 (col. 8, ll. 41-46; Fig. 1).
2. The method begins with system 110 determining that a
handover is required (col. 11, ll. 28-31), wherein nearby base stations are
polled for a measurement of the signal strength of the wireless terminal, and
the wireless terminal reports measurements of the signal strength of
transmissions from nearby base stations (col. 11, ll. 42-47).
3. The CSCF 152 recognizes that the handover target resides in a
circuit wireless system 120 and therefore the CSCF 152, MG 150, and
MGCF/T-SGW 154 cooperate to emulate an anchor MSC when
communicating with system 120 (col. 11, ll. 51-55).
Saifullah
4. Saifullah discloses carrying call control information after a call
handover from an Internet Protocol (IP) packet switched network to a circuit
switched cellular network, and vice versa (Abstract), wherein when a mobile
station adaption function receives a Global System for Mobile (GSM)
message from a GSM application, the mobile station adaption function
encapsulates the GSM message into user-user data in a datagram message
(p. 5, ¶ [0047]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 8-12, 15, and 16
As to claims 1-3 and 8-10, although Appellants concede that Ejzak
discloses a device that “negotiates a handover by formatting and initiating an
exchange of an appropriate handover message sequence,” Appellants
Appeal 2011-001474
Application 11/618,234

5
contend that such device is “the CSCF 152, the MG 150, and the MGCF/T-
SGW 154 [which] cooperate to emulate an anchor MSC” but not an MSC
(App. Br. 8). Thus, Appellants contend that “the handover described in
Ejzak is initiated in the packet-switched network and is not initiated by the
MSC” (id.).
However, we give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054
(Fed. Cir. 1997). Thus, we will not read limitations from the Specification
into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Claim 1 does not define an “MSC” other than “a second radio access
network” is coupled (directly, or indirectly) thereto, that an MME routes “a
CS call control message” thereto over an interface therebetween, and that
handover is initiated therefrom (claim 1). Accordingly, we give “MSC” its
broadest reasonable interpretation as any device directly or indirectly
coupled to a radio access network that receives a message/data and then
initiates handover using the received message/data.
Ejzak discloses handover of wireless calls between systems
supporting circuit and packet call models (FF 1), wherein the CSCF, MG,
and MGCF/T-SGW cooperate to emulate an anchor MSC (FF 3). That is,
the CSCF, MG, and MGCF/T-SGW comprise an emulated MSC that
receives data and then initiates handover. Even Appellants concede that
Ejzak teaches that “the CSCF 152, the MG 150, and the MGCF/T-SGW
154” comprise an emulated anchor MSC that “negotiates a handover by
formatting and initiating an exchange of an appropriate handover message
sequence” (App. Br. 8). In view of our claim interpretation above, we find
Ejzak’s emulated anchor MSC comprises an MSC that initiates handover,
Appeal 2011-001474
Application 11/618,234

6
and thus, we conclude that Ejzak at the least suggests “initiating, from the
MSC, a handover” as required by claim 1.
Claim 1 also does not define “CS control message” other than it is
“transmitted by a mobile unit in a packet switched message,” routed to the
MSC, and then used for initiating a handover. Thus, we give “CS control
message” its broadest reasonable interpretation as data received from a
mobile unit and used by an MSC for initiating a handover.
Ejzak’s system determines that a handover is required by polling
nearby base stations, and the wireless terminal reports measurements of the
signal strength of transmissions from the nearby base stations (FF 2). That
is, Ejzak discloses receiving data transmitted by a mobile unit, wherein the
handover is initiated by the MSC using the received data. We find no error
in the Examiner’s finding that “the handover is initiated when the mobile
unit transmits a CS control message (in a packet switched message) through
a packet switched network to an MSC” (Ans. 9). That is, we find the data
received from the mobile units comprise “a CS call control message”, and
thus, conclude that Ejzak at the least suggests receiving a “CS call control
message” and “initiating, from the MSC, a handover of the VoIP call to the
CS call using the CS call control message” as required by claim 1.
Further, Saifullah discloses carrying call control information after a
call handover from an IP packet switched network to a circuit switched
cellular network, wherein the GSM message is encapsulated for transmission
(FF 4). We find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that it would have
been obvious “to implement the handover of wireless calls between a packet
and circuit call model of Ejzak after modifying it to incorporate the ability to
Appeal 2011-001474
Application 11/618,234

7
encapsulate CS call control signaling within packets of Saifullah” (Ans. 9-
10).
We also note that although Appellants contend that Ejzak fails to
disclose the claimed invention (App. Br. 8-10), Appellants acknowledge that
the claims have been rejected as being obvious over Ejzak in view of
Saifullah (App. Br. 8). The test for obviousness is not what the references
show individually but what the combined teachings would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986).
For the reasons we set forth above, we find no error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 and claims 2, 3, and 8-10 falling therewith as being
obvious over Ejzak in view of Saifullah.
As for claims 4 and 11, although Appellants argue that “Saifullah does
not describe or suggest encapsulating circuit-switched call control messages
so that a portion of the CS call control message can be delivered to the MSC
so that the MSC can use this information to initiate the handover” (App. Br.
11), such argument is not commensurate in scope with the recited language
of claims 4 and 11 since the claims do not recite any such “so that . . . can be
delivered” or “so that . . . can use this information to initiate the handover”.
Instead, claim 4 (and similarly claim 11) merely recites that the “routing”
step comprises “receiving the CS call control message at the MME and
delivering a selected portion of the CS call control message to the MSC”.
As discussed above, we find that Ejzak discloses receiving data
transmitted by a mobile unit, wherein the handover is initiated by the MSC
using the received data (FF 2). We find no error in the Examiner’s finding
that “the ‘selected portion’ could be any part or meaning of the message”
Appeal 2011-001474
Application 11/618,234

8
(Ans. 13). That is, we find such received data at the MSC also comprises a
“portion” of the data. Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s conclusion
that Ejzak and Saifullah “would have suggested” delivering a “portion” of
the “CS call control message” to the MSC, as claimed (id.). Accordingly,
we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4 and 11 as being
obvious over Ejzak in view of Saifullah.
As for claims 5 and 12, although Appellants argue that “[Ejzak]
teaches that information related to the handover must be translated from one
format into a different format before being passed from the packet-switched
network into the circuit-switched network” (App. Br. 13), such argument is
not commensurate in scope with the recited language of claims 5 and 12
since the claims do preclude any such “different format”. Instead, claim 5
(and similarly claim 12) merely recites “delivering the CS call control
message directly to the MSC”.
Ejzak discloses receiving data at the MSC (FF 2). We find no error in
the Examiner’s finding that there is a “direct” link to the MSC (Ans. 15).
Thus, we find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that Ejzak in view of
Saifullah at the least would have suggested such “directly” delivering.
Accordingly, we also find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5
and 12 as being obvious over Ejzak in view of Saifullah.
As for claims 15 and 16, although Appellants contend that “[Ejzak]
teaches that the purpose of implementing [] translation function is to
minimize or avoid entirely the need to modify or upgrade existing circuit
systems,” that “[Ejzak] therefore teaches that the hand off functionality is
provided in the packet system (App. Br. 14) (citations omitted), such
contentions are not commensurate in scope with the recited language of the
Appeal 2011-001474
Application 11/618,234

9
claims. Instead, claim 15 (and claim 16 depending therefrom) merely recites
providing “a CS call control message” to “a first radio access network
(RAN)”, wherein claim 15 does not even define “a CS call control message”
other than it is data provided to the first RAN from mobile unit.
Further, as the Examiner points out, “[t]he rejection under review is
not a 35 U.S.C. [§]102 rejection over [Ejzak] or Saifullah alone, but rather
what the combined teachings of [Ejzak] in view of Saifullah would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art” (Ans. 16, citing In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981)). We find no error in the Examiner’s finding
that “[Ejzak] teaches the ability to translate a message from a first protocol
into a second, equivalent message in a second protocol” and thus find no
error in the Examiner’s conclusion that Ejzak in view of Saifullah would
have suggested the claimed steps (Ans. 16-17). That is, we conclude that
Ejzak in view of Saifullah would at least have suggested “providing” data to
“a first RAN” supporting VoIP calls, and “receiving” and indication that a
call has been handed over to “a second RAN” supporting a CS call, as
required by claims 15 and 16.
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15 and 16
as being obvious over Ejzak in view of Saifullah.
Claims 6, 7, 13, and 14
As for claims 6, 7, 13, and 14, Appellants merely contend that “Kant
does not remedy the aforementioned fundamental deficiencies of [Ejzak] and
Saifullah” (App. Br. 15-16). However, as discussed above, we find no
deficiencies with respect to Ejzak and Saifullah. Accordingly, we also find
no error in the rejection of claim 6, 7, 13, and 14 over Ejzak and Saifullah in
further view of Kant.
Appeal 2011-001474
Application 11/618,234

10

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Vsh/llw