Ex Parte Vrbaski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 12, 2016

13157888 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 12, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/157,888 06/10/2011
76614 7590
Terry W, Kramer, Esq,
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
04/14/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mira Vrbaski
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
ALC 3716 8167
EXAMINER
HUSSAIN, TAUQIR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2446
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/14/2016 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):
mail@krameramado.com
ipsnarocp@alcatel-lucent.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MIRA VRBASKI, COLIN L. KAHN,
MARK A. SMITH, EDWARD GRINSHPUN, and
SANKARANARAYANANSATHYANARAYAN
Appeal2014-006806
Application 13/157,888
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Appeal2014-006806
Application 13/157,888
INVENTION
The invention is directed to providing cost information related to
network congestion on a wireless network. (Spec. i-fi-f l-3.) Claim 1 is
illustrative and is reproduced below:
1. A method performed by a network platform, the
method comprising:
receiving a subscriber ID, associated base station ID, and
application IDs from a user equipment, each application ID
identifying an application used by the user equipment and
associated with an application node;
receiving network congestion information from a network
monitor;
identifying an application affected by the network
congestion;
calculating a cost to the identified application due to the
network congestion;
and
notifying the identified application node associated with
the application of the calculated cost.
Kagimoto
Andreasen
Momtahan
REFERENCES
US 2008/0102853 Al
US 2009/0109845 Al
US 2011/0276442 Al
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
May 1, 2008
Apr. 30, 2009
Nov. 10, 2011
Claims 1-3, 9-11, and 14--16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Andreasen and Momtahan. (Final Act.
2--4.)
Claims 4--8, 12, 13, and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Andreasen, Momtahan, and Kagimoto. (Final Act. 4--
6.)
2
Appeal2014-006806
Application 13/157,888
ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Andreasen
and Momtahan teaches or suggests "calculating a cost to the identified
application due to the network congestion" as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 9 and 14?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Andreasen
and Momtahan teaches or suggests "notifying the identified application node
associated with the application of the calculated cost" as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in claims 9 and 14?
ANALYSIS
We select claims 1, 9, and 14 as representative of the group of claims
comprising claims 1-21 as Appellants have not argued any of the other
claims in this group with particularity. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Claims 1, 9, and 14 recite "calculate[ing] a cost to the identified
application due to the network congestion."
The Examiner finds Andreasen paragraph 48 teaches calculating a
cost due to network congestion. (Ans. 3; Final Act. 3.) Appellants argue
neither Andreasen nor Momtahan calculates a cost as claimed. (App. Br. 6.)
Specifically, Appellants argue it is unreasonable to redefine a differentiated
services code point (DSCP) value or QoS as the recited calculated costs.
(App. Br. 7 .) The Examiner finds the QoS packages and DSCP values are
directly proportional to "calculating a cost" and is consistent with the
specification and broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. (Ans. 3.)
The Examiner cites specification paragraph 34. (Ans. 2.) Appellants argue
3
Appeal2014-006806
Application 13/157,888
the Examiner has taken an unreasonably broad interpretation of the claim
language. (Reply Br. 3.)
We are unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred by considering the
level of QoS and DSCP values as a calculated cost as recited by claims 1, 9,
and 14. (See Ans. 3.) Specification paragraph 34 provides examples of
"cost" stating "[t]he cost may actually be calculated based upon a currency
value or may simply be a numeric metric that will, for example, allow for
comparison to thresholds and other values" (emphasis added). We agree
with the Examiner that QoS packages and DSCP values are metrics which
allow for comparison to thresholds and other values. (See Ans. 2-3.) We
further agree with the Examiner that the claim language does not define
what basis or factors are involved in calculating a cost as claimed. (See Ans.
3.) Therefore there are no basis or factors to distinguish the cost as claimed
from the QoS and DSCP data values. For at least these reasons the DSCP
value taught by Andreasen paragraph 48 is within the scope of a calculated
"cost" as recited by claims 1, 8, and 14.
Claims 1, 9, and 14 recite "notify[ing] the [identified] application
node associated with the [] application of the calculated cost."
The Examiner finds Momtahan paragraph 68 teaches "in order to
prevent 'bill shock' due to exceeding data quotas and in order to extend
usage control to subscribers, ... provide proactive notifications to user
equipment 102 when subscribers are nearing bandwidth usage thresholds or
data roaming charge limits in roamed network service provider 230." (Ans.
4.) Appellants argue that neither a "DSCP value" nor a "bandwidth
threshold" would be seen as a calculated cost as recited in claims 1, 9, and
14. (App. Br. 7.) For the same reasons as discussed above we are
4
Appeal2014-006806
Application 13/157,888
unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred by considering the level of QoS
and DSCP values as a calculated cost as recited by claims 1, 9, and 14. (See
Ans. 3.) Furthermore, we agree with the Examiner that Momtahan
paragraph 68 teaches notifying subscribers of cost information "to prevent
'bill shock.'" (See Ans. 3--4.)
For the reasons supra, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims
1-21.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-21 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
5