Ex Parte Pallares Lopez et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 22, 201411573672 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 22, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MIGUEL ANGEL PALLARES LOPEZ, EVARISTO JOSE CAMARERO, LUIS LOPEZ SORIA, MARIA-CARMEN BELINCHON VERGARA and ROBERT KHELLO1 ____________ Appeal 2012-008685 Application 11/573,672 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., GLENN J. PERRY, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. PERRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 Collectively “Appellant.” Appellant identifies Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson as the real party-in-interest. Appeal 2012-008685 Application 11/573,672 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–34. App. Br. 2.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). For reasons set forth below, we affirm. Invention Appellant’s invention carries out a “handover” from a first call control server to a second call control server in order to associate a user with a server that is suitable to a user’s needs. It also provides a mechanism whereby a subscriber server may upgrade selection criteria for assigning the second call control server. It re-assigns the second server while an “ongoing session” is kept alive. A call control server is arranged to report what portions of a user profile are not understood or not supported. See Abstract, Appeal Brief 2-5. Illustrative Claim Claims 1, 10, 20, 31, and 34 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below. We have numbered and emphasized limitations that are argued for ease of reference. 1. A method for carrying out a handover between two serving call control servers in a telecommunication network, wherein a user accesses the network through a proxy call control server and is assigned with a first serving call control server for servicing the user, the first serving call control server having a 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Office Action (“FOA”) dated March 7, 2011; (2) the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed September 6, 2011; and (3) the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”) mailed February 22, 2012. Appeal 2012-008685 Application 11/573,672 3 set of capabilities suitable for fitting information elements in a user profile for the user, the method including the steps of: determining capabilities not provided by the first serving call control server to fit information elements in the user profile for the user; and initiating a re-registration towards the user through the proxy call control server for assigning a second serving call control server the initiating a re-registration step further comprising: (1) providing an identifier of the first serving call control server towards the second serving call control server; (2)providing session information for the ongoing sessions from the first serving call control server to the second serving call control server assigned for servicing the user within a handover procedure (3) to keep alive ongoing sessions and linked data for the user at both proxy call control server and second serving call control server; and indicating to the proxy call control server a handover between first and second call control servers for storing a reference to the second serving call control server (4) linked with references to the ongoing sessions. (emphasis, reference numerals and formatting added) Rejections 1. Claims 1-33 stand rejected, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Poikselka3 and Bajko.4 2. Claim 34 stands rejected as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. §102(b) by Poikselka. 3 WO 03/061236 – Poikselka (“Poikselka”) 4 WO 02/091786 − Bajko (“Bajko”) Appeal 2012-008685 Application 11/573,672 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1–33 The Examiner finds that Poikselka meets all of the limitations of claim 1 except for the “ongoing sessions” limitation which is taught by Bajko. Ans. 6-9. Appellant argues that limitations (1)–(4) are not described by Poikselka. App. Br. 6. We agree with and adopt the Examiner’s reasoning set forth at pages 15-18 of the Answer. Appellant argues that what sets claim 1 apart from the Poikselka and Bajko combination is that the claimed invention provides a handover from a first server to a second server while “ongoing sessions” are kept alive. App. Br. 7. Appellant argues that Bajko’s “ongoing sessions” are different from the claimed “ongoing sessions.” App. Br. 8. According to Appellant, Bajko refers to a user’s entire currently alive session as being “ongoing.” Appellant points to Bajko 9:20-24 which states “[a]n advantage …is that existing sessions are not dropped, since the network can inform the user equipment that a re-registration is needed in order to or continue to be able to use the services offered by the network.” According to Appellant, Bajko does not suggest maintaining only some ongoing services on a first server while transferring some services to a second server, as claimed. App. Br. 8. The Examiner adopted a construction of “ongoing sessions” that is broader than that argued by Appellant and that embraces Bajko, namely, “ongoing session” embraces “a handoff from a current network to another network supporting the given required capability.” Ans. 16. Appeal 2012-008685 Application 11/573,672 5 We find the Examiner’s construction to be reasonable under the circumstances. We find no definition of “ongoing sessions” in Appellant’s Specification. Furthermore, claim 1 (and claims 10, 20, and 31) do not require that some of the services provided by the first server continue to be provided by the first server after handover. Thus, the argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1 and the other independent claims. Appellant acknowledges that Bajko operates in a manner in which ongoing sessions are not dropped. App. Br. 8. See Bajko 7: 10-22 and 9:20- 24. Independent claims 10, 20, and 31 are argued together with claim 1. The respective dependent claims are not separately argued. For reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-33. Claim 34 Claim 34 is reproduced below. 34. An intermediate network server suitable for assigning a serving call control server for servicing a user in a telecommunication network, the assignation being (5) based on a set of capabilities that each serving call control server has for servicing the user, the intermediate network server having: means for receiving capabilities criteria for (6) assigning a new serving call control server; means for selecting the new serving call control server that better fits the capabilities criteria; and means for transmitting (7) to the new assigned serving call control server (8) an identifier of a previously assigned call control server for handover purposes. Poikselka Fig. 1 is reproduced below. Appeal 2012-008685 Application 11/573,672 6 Poikselka Fig. 1 Poikselka describes its Fig. 1 as showing user equipment 40 being served by a current server S-CSCF0 10 in its home network (HN) being handed over to a future server (I-CSCF 50). These sessions may have been initiated via a proxy (P-CSCF 30) in a visiting network. A master database HSS 20 knows the capabilities of the various servers in its network. Appellant argues that limitations (5)–(8) of claim 34 are not described by Poikselka. App. Br. 11-12. However, the Examiner clearly reads claim 34 on Poikselka at Ans. 5–6 and 18–21. We adopt the Examiner’s findings with regard to claim 34. For reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 34. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated, we do not find err in the Examiner’s rejections. We therefore sustain the rejections of claims 1-34. Appeal 2012-008685 Application 11/573,672 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–34 is 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation