Ex Parte Svensson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 30, 2013

10513679 (P.T.A.B. May. 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.
10/513,679 03/13/2006 Magnus Svensson 9562-11 7874
20792 7590 05/31/2013
MYERS BIGEL SIBLEY & SAJOVEC
PO BOX 37428
RALEIGH, NC 27627
EXAMINER
TORRES, MARCOS L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2645
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/31/2013 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 MAGNUS SVENSSON and JAN GAJDOS
____________

Appeal 2011-011697
Application 10/513,679
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011697
Application 10/513,679
2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner finally rejected claims 8-20. Appellants appeal
therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants' claimed invention is directed to a method for
communicating messages to electronic communication equipment (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 8, reproduced below, is representative of the subject
matter on appeal:
8. A method for receiving data messages at electronic
communication equipment through a communication network,
comprising:

[a] receiving a message notification comprising a message
center identifier for identifying a message center that
transmitted the notification;

[b] comparing the received message center identifier with at
least one known message center identifier stored in the
electronic communication equipment;

[c] canceling said notification if said received message center
identifier does not match any stored message center identifier.

REJECTIONS
R1. The Examiner rejected claims 8, 15, and 17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCann (US Pat. Pub. 2007/0021101
A1) and Alperovich (US 6,101,393).
Appeal 2011-011697
Application 10/513,679
3
R2. The Examiner rejected claims 9, 10, 12-14, 16, and 18-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over McCann, Alperovich, and
Skog (US 6,947,738).
R3. The Examiner rejected claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over McCann, Alperovich, Skog, and Lindgren
(US 6,775,534 B2).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).

ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner's
obviousness rejections of the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in
response to arguments made in Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 8-12). We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments below.

INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 8 AND 15
A.
Appellants contend McCann would not have taught or suggested “[a]
receiving a message notification comprising a message center identifier for
identifying a message center that transmitted the notification” (emphasis
Appeal 2011-011697
Application 10/513,679
4
added), within in the meaning of claim 8, and the commensurate language of
claim 15. (App. Br. 4-6). Specifically, Appellants contend:
Paragraph 28 of McCann explains that messages can be
identified based on the originating SMSC [short message
service center], but uses the screening capability to identify
messages associated with prepaid accounts.
(App. Br. 5-6; emphasis added).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive because claims 8 and 15 do
not preclude using "the screening capability to identify messages associated
with prepaid accounts." (Id.). We agree with the Examiner that McCann's
teaching of “identif[ying] messages that originate from an SMSC in a list of
SMSCs” would have taught or suggested the limitation at issue. (McCann ¶
[0028]; Ans. 9-10).
B.
Appellants contend the combination of cited references would have
taught or suggested “[b] comparing the received message center identifier
with at least one known message center identifier stored in the electronic
communication equipment” and “[c] canceling said notification if said
received message center identifier does not match any stored message center
identifier,” within the meaning of claim 8, and the commensurate language
of claim 15. (App. Br. 6). Appellants specifically contend:
Alperovich is cited for disclosing the ability to use an
acceptance/rejection list. (Final Action, page 2). Alperovich
fails to provide the missing teachings from McCann regarding
the ability to compare a received message center identifier with
one or more known message center identifiers and canceling a
notification if the received message center identifier does not
match any of the known message center identifiers.
Appeal 2011-011697
Application 10/513,679
5
Appellants submit, therefore, that the combination of
McCann and Alperovich fails to disclose or suggest at least: 1)
receiving a message notification that comprises an identifier for
identifying the message center that transmitted the notification
and 2) canceling the notification if the received identifier does
not match any of the known identifiers for message centers.
(Id).
Appellants' contentions are not persuasive. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that Alperovich would have taught or suggested [b] comparing a
received identifier (mobile station ISDN number-MSISDN) with at least one
known identifier stored in the electronic communication equipment (Fig. 5,
elements 500 - 522; col. 5, ll. 21-40); and [c] canceling the notification if the
received message center identifier does not match any stored identifier (Fig.
5, element 452-reject delivery of SMS; col. 5, ll. 34-40). (Ans. 4-5, 8-12).
The Examiner concludes that substituting McCann's SMSC
(corresponding to the “received message center identifier" recited in claims
8, 15) for Alperovich's Mobile Station Integrated Services Digital Network
(MSISDN) ("identifier") would have taught or suggested the limitations [b]
and [c] at issue. (Ans. 10-12).
Moreover, Appellants consider the teachings of the references in
isolation and thus fail to specifically rebut the Examiner's ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness that is based on the combination of McCann and
Alperovich. (See Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097; Ans. 4-5, 10-12).
For these reasons, on this record, we are not persuaded of error
regarding the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness.

Appeal 2011-011697
Application 10/513,679
6
REMAINING CLAIMS
Although Appellants present nominal separate arguments for rejected
claims not addressed above, we affirm the Examiner's rejections of all
rejected claims for the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer, and
for the reasons discussed above regarding commensurate limitations and
issues. (App. Br. 5-6).

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejections R1-R3 of claims 8-20 under
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any action connected with this appeal may
be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

ORDER
AFFIRMED

tkl