10229488 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2011)

Ex Parte Viswanath et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesFeb 22, 2011

10229488 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 22, 2011)

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. 10/229,488 08/27/2002 Kaartik Viswanath 062891.0711 9508 7590 02/22/2011 BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 75201-2980 EXAMINER GENACK, MATTHEW W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2617 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2011 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES _____________ Ex parte KAARTIK VISWANATH, JAYARAMAN R. IYER, MARCO C. CENTEMERI, WEN-LIN TSAO, and LAURENT ANDRIANTSIFERANA _____________ Appeal 2009-008332 Application 10/229,488 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before, JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ALLEN R. MACDONALD, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision. Appeal 2009-008332 Application 10/229,488 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the final rejection of claims 1-23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a method, module, logic, and system for processing mobile device network access requests. Actual network addresses are embedded within pass-through fields of network access requests to allow gateway generalized packet radio service (GPRS) serving node (GGSN) or virtual address translation modules to handle network access request processing. See Spec: 3-4. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method for processing network access requests for mobile devices, the method comprising: receiving a network access request for establishment of a communication link for data communications for a mobile device, the network access request comprising a requested network field and a pass-through field; determining a requested network from text in the pass- through field; setting the requested network field to the requested network; determining a gateway linking to the requested network; and forwarding the network access request to the gateway. 2 Appeal 2009-008332 Application 10/229,488 REFERENCES Primak US 2001/0039585 A1 Nov. 8, 2001 Kriaras US 2002/0015391 A1 Feb. 7, 2002 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kriaras. Ans. 3-4. Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kriaras in view of Primak. Ans. 4-6. ISSUE Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23 Appellants argue on pages 14-16 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2-4 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23 is in error. Appellants argue that Kriaras does not disclose “receiving a network access request comprising a requested network field and a pass- through field” as claimed in independent claims 1, 8, 15, 22, and 23. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2. Dependent claims 2-3, 6-7, 9-10, 13-14, 16-17, and 20- 21 are dependent upon claims 1, 8, 15, 22, and 23. Thus, with respect to claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23, Appellants’ contention presents us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding 3 Appeal 2009-008332 Application 10/229,488 Kriaras discloses receiving a network access request comprising a requested network field and a pass-through field?2 Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 Appellants argue on page 16 of the Appeal Brief and page 4 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 is in error. Appellants argue that these claims are allowable based upon their dependency on claims 1, 8, and 15. App. Br. 16; Reply Br. 4. Thus, with respect to claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19, Appellants’ contention presents us with the same issues as claims 1, 8, and 15. ANALYSIS Claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23 Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23. Claim 1 requires a network access request that comprises a requested network field and a pass-through field. The Examiner finds that Kriaras discloses an uplink that includes lub L1, L2 headers, an IP2 field, and other fields. Ans. 6-7. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Kriaras discloses a call request that comprises the called party number and an IP2 field. Ans. 7. Therefore, the Examiner finds that Kriaras discloses a message that contains the called party number and L1 and L2 wherein L1 and L2 are network fields and the called party number is 2 Appellants make additional arguments regarding claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e). App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 3-4. We do not reach these additional arguments since the issue of whether Kriaras discloses receiving a network access request comprising a requested network field and a pass-through field is dispositive of the rejection. 4 Appeal 2009-008332 Application 10/229,488 the pass-through field. Ans. 7. Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings combine two separate messages. App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2. The first is a request received by the call control center from a mobile station. Reply Br. 2. The second is an uplink message to a media gateway from a radio network controller. Reply Br. 2-3. We agree. While the Examiner has shown that the reference discloses a message that contains a network field and a message that contains a pass-through field, the Examiner has not shown that these fields are contained in one, single message. Even though both messages disclose an IP2 field, this fact alone does not mean that the messages are the same. Therefore, the Examiner has failed to show a message that contains a network field and a pass-through field as required by the claims. As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-3, 6-10, 13-17, and 20-23. Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 Appellants’ arguments have persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19. Claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19 are dependent upon independent claims 1, 8, and 15 (respectively). Appellants present the same arguments discussed above with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15. The additional teachings of Primak do not make up for the deficiencies noted above. Therefore, we find Appellants’ previously presented arguments to be persuasive for the same reasons as we stated above. As such, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 4-5, 11-12, and 18-19. 5 Appeal 2009-008332 Application 10/229,488 CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in finding Kriaras discloses receiving a network access request comprising a requested network field and a pass-through field. SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-23 is reversed. REVERSED ELD BAKER BOTTS L.L.P. 2001 ROSS AVENUE DALLAS, TX 75201-2980 6