Ex Parte Vijay

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 15, 2011

10023297 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte SHARADHA VIJAY
____________

Appeal 2009-009597
Application 10/023,297
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, JAMES R. HUGHES, and
JEFFREY S. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-44 and 85, which are all the claims remaining in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2009-009597
Application 10/023,297

2
Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for capturing call events and
other information in a platform independent way. The method includes
generating call event records in response to session initiation protocol (SIP)
call events. A call event file is created that includes all the call event records
collected by a server over a predetermined period of time. The call event
file is an extensible markup language (XML) document that includes
generic, uniformly formatted records that can be read by any network device
equipped with an XML parser. XML documents include embedded
instructions that enable a receiving computer to decode the records without
needing a special proprietary interface. Abstract.

Representative Claim
1. A method comprising:
creating an XML call event file including a server information
section, at least one SIP message section, and at least one call event
section;
generating at least one call event record in response to at least
one event; and
storing the at least one call event record in either the at least one
SIP message section, or the at least one call event section.

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-44 and 85 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jang (US 6,980,526 B2) and Ulrich (6,895,438 B1).

Appeal 2009-009597
Application 10/023,297

3
Claim Groupings
In view of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide
the appeal on the basis of claims 1, 2, and 10. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
PRINCIPAL ISSUE
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Jang and Ulrich teaches “creating an XML call event file
including a server information section, at least one SIP message section, and
at least one call event section” as recited in claim 1?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We rely on the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Rejection and the Examiner’s Answer.

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Claim Interpretation
The content of non-functional descriptive material is not entitled to
weight in the patentability analysis. See In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583
(Fed. Cir. 1994) (“Lowry does not claim merely the information content of a
memory. . . . Nor does he seek to patent the content of information resident
in a database.”). See also Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883 (BPAI 2008).
Obviousness
“[W]hen a patent ‘simply arranges old elements with each performing
the same function it had been known to perform’ and yields no more than
one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.”
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) (quoting Sakraida
Appeal 2009-009597
Application 10/023,297

4
v. Ag Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273, 282 (1976)). The operative question is
“whether the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions.” Id.

ANALYSIS
Section 103 rejection of claim 1
Appellant contends that Ulrich does not disclose creating an XML call
event file that includes a server information section, at least one SIP message
section, and at least one call event section because Ulrich does not mention
session initiation protocol (SIP). App. Br. 9-10. The Examiner finds that
the XML call event file has three sections that are labeled, but the labels are
arbitrary and the given names of the sections are nothing more than labels.
Ans. 9.
We find that the terms “server information,” “SIP message,” and “call
event” in the phrase “a server information section, at least one SIP message
section, and at least one call event section” are non-functional descriptive
material that is not entitled to patentable weight. The different sections are
not functionally involved in the steps recited nor do they alter the recited
structural elements. The recited method steps would be performed the same
regardless of the specific labels attached to the sections. Further, the
structural elements remain the same regardless of the specific labels of the
sections. The differences between the file recited in the claim and the file in
the prior art are only found in the non-functional descriptive material. Thus
the descriptive material will not distinguish the claimed invention from the
prior art in terms of patentability.
Appeal 2009-009597
Application 10/023,297

5
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not explained why one
skilled in the art would construe Jang or Ulrich as disclosing storing the at
least one call event record in either the at least one SIP message section, or
the at least one call event section. App. Br. 14. Appellant’s contention
appears based on the premise that the labels attached to the section are
entitled to patentable weight. However, we find this contention
unpersuasive as discussed above.
Appellant contends that Jang does not disclose creating an XML call
event file, because Jang does not mention XML. App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 5-8.
Appellant also contends that Ulrich does not disclose creating an XML call
event file. Reply Br. 8-11. However, the Examiner finds that Jang teaches a
call event file, and Ulrich teaches storing a record in XML format. The
Examiner further finds that a benefit of storing the call event file taught by
Jang in XML format is facilitating business transactions as taught by Ulrich.
Ans. 4-5. Appellant’s attack against the references individually does not
persuade us of error in the rejection.
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s motivation to combine Ulrich
and Jang is conclusory and based on impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 12.
We find that storing a call event record as taught by Jang in XML format as
taught by Ulrich appears to represent the combination of familiar elements
according to known methods that does no more than yield the predictable
result of an XML call event record. We sustain the rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2009-009597
Application 10/023,297

6
Section 103 rejection of claims 2-9
Claim 2 recites “wherein the method is performed using a
telecommunications network device.” The Examiner finds that claim 2
recites no further steps or further limitations except to give a label to the
device that performs the steps of claim 1. The Examiner concludes that the
label given to the device is non-functional descriptive material. Ans. 14.
Appellant contends that claim 2 does not recite labels, but recites that the
method of claim 1 is performed using a telecommunications network device.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner did not address this feature of
claim 2. App. Br. 15-16.
The Examiner did address the telecommunications network device,
and found that the telecommunications network device recited in claim 2
does not add any further steps or further limitations to the method steps of
claim 1. Appellant has not provided evidence or persuasive argument to
rebut the Examiner’s finding. Appellant has also not provided a definition
of telecommunications network device that distinguishes the device recited
in claim 2 from the device shown in Ulrich or Jang. Appellant relies on
similar arguments for claims 3-9, which we find unpersuasive.
We sustain the rejections of claims 2-9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Section 103 rejection of claims 10-25
Claim 10 recites “wherein the at least one event includes a SIP invite
request.” The Examiner finds that claim 10 does not recite steps for using
the SIP invite request. The Examiner also finds that the recitation of claim
10 is a label for data. Ans. 15. Appellant contends that claim 10 does not
merely recite labels, but recites a SIP invite request. App. Br. 22. In the
Appeal 2009-009597
Application 10/023,297

7
Reply Brief, Appellant makes a general contention that the portion of Jang
cited by the Examiner does not address features recited in claims 10-25 and
29-44, and that the Examiner does not provide an articulated reasoning
necessary to support a legal conclusion of obviousness. Reply Br. 12-13.
We find that the term “SIP invite request” is non-functional
descriptive material that is not entitled to patentable weight. The SIP invite
request is not functionally involved in the steps recited nor does the SIP
invite request alter recited structural elements. The recited method steps
would be performed the same regardless of the specific labels attached to the
data. Further, the structural elements remain the same regardless of the
specific labels of the data. The differences between the data recited in the
claim and the data in the prior art are only found in the non-functional
descriptive material. Thus, the descriptive material will not distinguish the
claimed invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Appellant
relies on similar arguments for claims 11-25, which we find unpersuasive.
We sustain the rejections of claims 10-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Section 103 rejection of claim 26
Appellant contends that the combination of Ulrich and Jang does not
teach an XML processor module coupled to the call event record module,
the XML processor module being configured to create an XML call event
file, the XML call event file including the at least one call event record as
recited in claim 26. App. Br. 35-36. Appellant further contends that the
Examiner’s motivation for combining Jang and Ulrich is conclusory and
based on impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 36-38. The Examiner relies on
Jang to teach a processor module configured to create a call event file
Appeal 2009-009597
Application 10/023,297

8
including at least one call event record. The Examiner relies on Ulrich to
teach that the call event record can be an XML record. The Examiner finds
that a benefit of recording call events in XML format is facilitating business
transactions as taught by Ulrich. Ans. 5-6, 10-12.
Using the processor module to create a call event file including a call
event record as taught by Jang in XML format as taught by Ulrich appears to
represent the combination of familiar elements according to known methods
that does no more than yield the predictable result of an XML call event
record.
We sustain the rejection of claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Section 103 rejection of claims 27 and 28
Appellant presents arguments similar to those presented for claims 2-
9, which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the rejections of claims 27 and
28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Section 103 rejection of claims 29-44
Appellant presents arguments similar to those presented for claims 10-
25, which we find unpersuasive. We sustain the rejections of claims 29-44
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Section 103 rejection of claim 85
Appellant contends that the combination of Jang and Ulrich does not
teach or suggest creating an XML call event file including the at least one
call event record that is generated in response to at least one event as recited
in claim 85. App. Br. 53-57. We find this argument unpersuasive for the
Appeal 2009-009597
Application 10/023,297

9
reasons discussed in the analysis of claims 1 and 26. We sustain the
rejection of claim 85 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION OF LAW
Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Jang and Ulrich teaches “creating an XML call event file
including a server information section, at least one SIP message section, and
at least one call event section” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-44 and 85 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Jang and Ulrich 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)(vii).

AFFIRMED

ELD