Ex Parte Terpstra

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2017

13801398 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2017)

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.
13/801,398 03/13/2013 Richard Dean Terpstra 0448-US-Ul 1092
83579 7590 07/24/2017
LEVEL 3 COMMUNICATIONS, LLC
Attn: Patent Docketing
1025 Eldorado Blvd.
Broomfield, CO 80021
EXAMINER
CATTUNGAL, AJAY P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/24/2017 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):
patent, docketing @ leve!3. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RICHARD DEAN TERPSTRA1
Appeal 2016-002716
Application 13/801,398
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judge
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—15.2 Claim 17 is canceled. On July 11, 2017,
an oral hearing was held in this case. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies Level 3 Communications, LLC as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
2 Claims 16 and 18—20 are allowed.
Appeal 2016-002716
Application 13/801,398
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant describes the disclosed and claimed invention as follows:
Aspects of the present disclosure involve systems,
methods, computer program products, and the like, for
implementing a registrar component or functionality in a
telecommunications network. In one implementation, the
registrar functionality is handled at a Session Border Controller
(SBC) or Network Address Translation (NAT) Traversal
Manager (NTM) device of the network to alleviate an application
server of the network from performing the registration function.
Abstract.3
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below (with the disputed
limitation emphasized)'.
1. A system for transmitting one or more communications
in a telecommunications network, the system comprising:
an application server configured to provide one or more
services to at least two users of a telecommunications network each
user associated with at one least end user device configured to
transmit and receive communications from the telecommunications
network;
a session border controller device in communication with the
application server and the at least one end user device, wherein the
session border controller device is divided to address each user, and
a registrar module integrated into the session border controller
device, the registrar module configured to receive one or more
3 Our Decision refers to the Final Action mailed Feb. 20, 2014 (“Final
Act.”); Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed Oct. 21, 2014 (“Br.”); the Examiner’s
Answer mailed Oct. 21, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the original Specification filed
Mar. 13,2013 (“Spec.”).
2
Appeal 2016-002716
Application 13/801,398
registration messages from that at least one end user device in
communication with the session border controller device and register
the at least one end user device with the telecommunications network.
Br. 15 (Claims App’x).
References and Rejections on Appeal
1. Claims 1—3, 5, 7, and 9 stand rejected as being anticipated by
Bakke et al. (US 2007/0104183 Al; published May 10, 2007) (“Bakke”).
2. Claims 4, 6, 8, 10-13, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bakke and Yasrebi et al. (US 8,125,999
B2; issued Feb. 28, 2012) (“Yasrebi”).
3. Claims 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bakke, Yasrebi as applied to claim 13, and Butler et al.
(US 2003/0161296 Al; published Aug. 28, 2003) (“Butler”).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments in the Brief and are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Unless
otherwise noted, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 2—9) and in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3—6), and we concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. For emphasis, we consider and
highlight specific arguments as presented in the Brief.
Rejection of Claims 1—3, 5, 7, and 9 under § 102(b)
Appellant argues the Examiner has failed to show that “the Bakke
reference teaches the claim element ‘wherein the session border controller
3
Appeal 2016-002716
Application 13/801,398
device is divided to address each user.’” Br. 6. In particular, Appellant
argues the Examiner does not identity “concrete evidence” that Bakke
discloses this limitation, but “speculates what the mere disclosure of a
session border controller in Bakke would dictate.” Id. Appellant also argues
that the Examiner’s assertion that “‘a session border controller controls a
session between two users will at least address each of the two users’” is
incorrect. Id. at 7. According to Appellant, “[a] session border controller
allows an end-user device to communicate with an application server; but, it
is the application server that establishes a connection between two end-user
devices.” Id. Thus, Appellant argues the Examiner “is factually incorrect in
[] asserting] that a session border controller necessarily addresses both end
users of a call.” Id. Appellant further argues that the Examiner
“inappropriately relies on the law of inherency” because Bakke does not
disclose that two end users are conversing via the same border controller
and, therefore, “it does not necessarily follow from the Bakke reference that
two end users would be communicating via the same session border
controller.” Id. at 8.
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner
erred. First, the Examiner’s rejection is not based on “speculation” from the
“the mere disclosure of a session border controller in Bakke.” See Br. 6.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Bakke discloses a Public Safety Access
Point (PSAP), that involves a person answering 911 calls and dispatching
emergency personnel, connected to the PSTN, the application server, and in
turn the session border controller (SBC); and, therefore, “the SBC is
facilitating connection between the user 102 and the person connected to the
PSAP.” Ans. 2—3 (citing Bakke Fig. 1,12). The Examiner also finds, and
4
Appeal 2016-002716
Application 13/801,398
we agree, Bakke discloses logical-to-physical address mapping table 406
stored in the SBC with exemplary entries of “two telephone IDs and the
respective mapping to the logical to physical IP address[es].” Ans. 3 (citing
Bakke Fig. 4 (items 114 SBC and 406 table), 35—37, Table 3). Thus,
“concrete evidence,” rather than mere speculation, supports the Examiner’s
finding that Bakke expressly discloses two end users (PSAP and user 102)
communicating via the same session border controller (SBC 114) that is
divided to address each user (via mapping table 406 with the exemplary
entries shown in Table 3).
Second, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner’s findings are in error because “[a] session border controller
allows an end-user device to communicate with an application server; but, it
is the application server that establishes a connection between two end-user
devices.” Br. 7. As the Examiner notes, Appellant “agrees that the end-user
has to go through the session border controller to reach the application
server.” Ans. 2. Further, as the Examiner finds, the disputed limitation does
not recite “establishing a connection.” Thus, Appellant’s argument fails
because it is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. See In re Self,
671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (“[AJppellanf s arguments fail from the
outset because . . . they are not based on limitations appearing in the
claims.”).
Third, we find Appellant’s argument that the Examiner
“inappropriately relies on the law of inherency” (Br. 8) unpersuasive
because the Examiner does not rely on the doctrine of inherency. Instead,
the Examiner finds the disputed limitation is expressly disclosed by Bakke.
Ans. 3. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds Bakke discloses the
5
Appeal 2016-002716
Application 13/801,398
application server connected to the SBC and “the SBC is facilitating
connection between the user 102 and the person connected to the PSAP.”
Id. As also discussed supra, the Examiner finds that Bakke discloses the
session border controller is divided to address each user because Bakke
discloses logical-to-physical IP address mapping table 406 is stored in the
SBC, with the entries from table 3 “which clearly show[] at least two
telephone IDs and the respective mapping to the logical to physical IP
address[es].” Id.
Thus, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Bakke
discloses the disputed limitation of claim 1 and anticipates claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1, as well as dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 7, and 9, which are not
separately argued.
Rejection of Claims 4, 6, 8, 10—13, and 15 under § 103(a)
Appellant argues Bakke fails to teach the limitation “dividing the
session border control device by each end user of the plurality of end users,”
as recited in claim 10. Br. 10. The Examiner finds Bakke discloses this
limitation for the same reasons Bakke discloses the similar disputed
limitation of claim 1. Ans. 3. Appellant repeats the arguments regarding the
disputed limitation of claim 1 with respect to this limitation of claim 10 and
also argues “that inherency is inappropriate to a § 103 rejection.” Br. 10-14.
Appellant also argues that “the addition of the Yasrebi reference in
combination with Bakke fails to cure the deficiency in Bakke. Id. at 10, 14.
For the same reasons discussed supra regarding the disputed
limitation of claim 1, we are not persuaded by the same arguments of
Appellant with respect to the disputed limitation of claim 10. We are also
6
Appeal 2016-002716
Application 13/801,398
not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the use of inherency in a § 103
argument is “inappropriate” or “disfavored” because, as discussed supra, the
Examiner does not rely on the doctrine of inherency with respect to claim 1,
but finds that Bakke expressly teaches the disputed limitation. We are also
not persuaded by Appellant’s argument regarding Yasrebi because, for the
reasons discussed supra, there are no deficiencies in the disclosure of Bakke
regarding the disputed limitation of claim 1.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10, as well as
claims 4, 6, 8, 11—13, and 15, under § 103(a).4
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—3, 5,1, and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4, 6, 8, and 10—15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
4 Claim 14, which is rejected under the third-stated ground of rejection
above, is not argued by Appellant. Thus, we summarily sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 under § 103(a).
7