Ex Parte Viswanath et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 9, 2011

10229465 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 9, 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.
10/229,465 08/27/2002 Kaartik Viswanath 062891.0712 9503
7590 08/10/2011
BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
2001 Ross Avenue
Dallas, TX 75210-2980
EXAMINER
TO, BAOTRAN N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2435
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/10/2011 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 2009-006715
Application 10/229,465
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and
ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-006715
Application 10/229,465

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to processing network
access requests for mobile devices for establishment of a communication
link for data communications for a mobile device. The network access
request comprises a pass-through field and a requested network field that
indicates a data network. A requested service is detected from text in the
pass-through field, a user identifier, and a password. See Spec. 3.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal.
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 pass-through field and a
requested network field that indicates a data network;
determining a requested service from text in the pass-through
field;
determining a user identifier;
determining a password;
requesting validation of the network access request based on the
user identifier, the password, the data network, and the requested
service;
receiving validation of the network access request; and
Appeal 2009-006715
Application 10/229,465

3
establishing the communication link for the transport of packets
communicated between the mobile device and the data network.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Mizell US 2002/0075859 A1 Jun. 20, 2002
Jones US 2003/0212800 A1 Nov. 13, 2003
McConnell US 6,944,150 B1 Sep. 13, 2005
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 7-11, 14-18, 21, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones in view of
McConnell.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19, and 20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jones and McConnell in view
of Mizell.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the combination of Jones and McConnell
teaches the limitation of determining a requested service “from text in the
pass-through field” as recited in independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that nothing in McConnell, or anything else in the
record, suggests modifying Jones’ pass-through field, as identified by the
Examiner, to determine a requested service from text in the pass-through
field as required by independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22 (App. Br. 18).
Appeal 2009-006715
Application 10/229,465

4
We are persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The Examiner found,
and we agree, that Jones (¶ [0010]) teaches a network access request
comprising a pass-through field (i.e., authentication credentials) and a
requested network field (i.e., designated service providers) (Ans. 14). The
Examiner also found (Ans. 5, 12) that Jones teaches that the authentication
credentials include user ID and password (¶ [0022]).
However, we do not agree with the Examiner’s finding that
McConnell teaches determining a requested service from text in the pass-
through field (Ans. 14). McConnell teaches a session manager that uses text
(i.e., bookstore.com) supplied by a mobile station to identify the designated
service provider (Bookstore-Spanish.com) (col. 23, ll. 1-47). However, the
text is not in a pass-through field (i.e., the text is not included in the user ID)
as required by claim 1. On the contrary, according to McConnell the session
manager queries the service agent for the mobile stations’ or the user’s ID
after receiving the text (col. 23, ll. 1-47). Accordingly, McConnell does not
teach or suggest Jones’ missing limitation of determining a requested service
“from text in the pass-through field” (emphasis added).
For the aforesaid reasons we will reverse the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-4, 7-11, 14-18,
21, and 22. We will also reverse the rejections of claims 5, 6, 12, 13, 19,
and 20, for the same reasons stated supra, because the additional reference
of Mizell fails to cure the above cited deficiency.

Appeal 2009-006715
Application 10/229,465

5
CONCLUSION
The combination of Jones and McConnell does not teach the
limitation of determining a requested service “from text in the pass-through
field” as recited in independent claims 1, 8, 15, and 22.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 is reversed.

REVERSED

babc