Ex Parte Watson et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jun 24, 2011

10555914 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 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.
10/555,914 10/23/2006 Mark Watson 22493-210PUS
(15900IDUS03
4727
31292 7590 06/27/2011
CHRISTOPHER & WEISBERG, P.A.
200 EAST LAS OLAS BOULEVARD
SUITE 2040
FORT LAUDERDALE, FL 33301
EXAMINER
CRAWLEY, TALIA F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3687
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/27/2011 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 MARK WATSON, CHRISTOPHER RICHARDS,
GIUSEPPE RICAGANI, and IAN MCLEAN
____________

Appeal 2010-004892
Application 10/555,914
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before: MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, HUBERT C. LORIN, and MICHAEL
W. KIM, Administrative Patent Judges.

KIM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-004892
Application 10/555,914

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 64-68, 70-74, 76-
79, 81-93, 96-102, 105-111, and 115-1191. We have jurisdiction to review
the case under 35 U.S.C. §§ 134 and 6 (2002).
The claimed invention is directed to systems and method for charging
end users for the use of communications networks (Spec. 1). Claim 64,
reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed subject matter.
64. A method of charging an end user for
use of a communications network wherein service
flows between an end user equipment and the
network are transported via a gateway, the method
comprising the steps of:
at the gateway, identifying different service
flows and notifying the credit control function in
the network of the different service flows, wherein
the different service flows are between the end
user equipment and corresponding different
endpoints in the network;
at the gateway, receiving, from the credit
control function, information regarding a cache of
units corresponding to an amount of the end user's
credit and/or an amount of network resource for
the identified service flows;
at the gateway, receiving instructions from
the credit control function to enable the gateway to
perform a cache sharing procedure for the
identified service flows; and
at the gateway, performing the cache sharing
procedure using the cache for the identified service
flows.

1 Claims 1-63, 69, 75, 80, 94-95, 103-104, and 112-114 are cancelled (App.
Br. 1).
Appeal 2010-004892
Application 10/555,914

3
Claims 64-68, 70-74, 76, 78-79, 81-85, 87-89, 91-93, 96-102, 105-
111, and 115-119 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by
Kotaluoto (US Pat. 7,174,155 B2, iss. Feb. 6, 2007)2; and claims 77, 86, and
90 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kotaluoto .3
We AFFIRM.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Kotaluoto anticipates a cache
sharing procedure for different service flows between one end user
equipment and corresponding different endpoints in the network, as recited
in independent claims 64, 93, 105, and 111?
Did the Examiner err in asserting that Kotaluoto renders obvious
“applying the operator specified in the rate plan to the counted measure of
network resource to calculate an amount of units,” as recited in independent
claim 82?

FINDINGS OF FACT
We adopt the Examiner’s findings of fact, as set forth on pages 17-20
of the Examiner’s Answer.

2 The Examiner refers to the US version of Kotaluoto instead of the WO
version (2002/019686 A1, pub. Mar. 7, 2002) for Appellants’ convenience.
See Exam’r’s Ans. 4.
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 64, 83, 93, and 111 under
35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 112, first paragraph (Exam’r’s Ans. 17).
Appeal 2010-004892
Application 10/555,914

4
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 64, 93, 105, and 111
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Kotaluoto
anticipates a cache sharing procedure for different service flows between
one end user equipment and corresponding different endpoints in the
network, as recited in independent claims 64, 93, 105, and 111 (App. Br. 6-
8; Reply Br. 1-4). Appellants have construed independent claims 64, 93,
105, and 111 to require that the different service flows between one end user
equipment and corresponding different endpoints be “simultaneous.”
However, such a “simultaneous” aspect is not set forth in the claims. See
CollegeNet, Inc. v. ApplyYourself, Inc., 418 F.3d 1225, 1231 (Fed. Cir.
2005) (while the specification can be examined for proper context of a claim
term, limitations from the specification will not be imported into the claims).
Accordingly, under a broadest reasonable construction, any system that
connects one end user equipment to different endpoints in a network, even if
such connections are at different points in time, would meet the
aforementioned aspects of independent claims 64, 93, 105, and 111. To that
end, Kotaluoto discloses charging a user for making any combination of
connections between two terminals, whether it be wireless, fixed line, and/or
data network (col. 1, ll. 28-36; col. 5, ll. 23-34; col. 6, ll. 20-25; col. 7, ll. 17-
63; col. 8, ll. 17-36). Such combinations of connections are different service
flows between one end user equipment and corresponding different
endpoints in the network, as recited in independent claims 64, 93, 105, and
111, even if the different service flows of Kotaluoto are not “simultaneous”
(Exam’r’s Ans. 17-19).

Appeal 2010-004892
Application 10/555,914

5
Independent Claim 82
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred in asserting that Kotaluoto
renders obvious “applying the operator specified in the rate plan to the
counted measure of network resource to calculate an amount of units,” as
recited in independent claim 82 (App. Br. 8-9; Reply Br. 4-5). We adopt the
Examiner’s reasoning, as set forth on pages 20-22 of the Examiner’s
Answer. Specifically, Kotaluoto discloses a mobile switching center or
specific billing center that corresponds to the recited operator; eparameters,
MCZ parameters, Airtime Charge, and PSTN charge that correspond to the
recited rate plan; and deducting charges from a prepaid amount based on
usage which corresponds to the recited “counted measure of network
resource to calculate an amount of units.”

Dependent Claims
Appellants make several arguments concerning the additional
patentability of dependent claims 70, 71, and 83 (App. Br. 10-12; Reply Br.
1-4). Pages 22-28 of the Examiner’s Answer respond to all arguments in the
Appeal Brief concerning dependent claims 70, 71, and 83, and we adopt the
reasons therein as our own.
In the Reply Brief, Appellants assert that
there is absolutely no discussion [in the
Examiner’s Answer] regarding identifying other
service flows (between the end user equipment and
other corresponding end points in the network)
having instructions referencing the same
charging pool and performing the cache sharing
procedure for the first service flow and the other
service flows[,]

Appeal 2010-004892
Application 10/555,914

6
as set forth in dependent claim 71 (Reply Br. 6) (emphasis original).
However, pages 23-25 of the Examiner’s Answer cite various portions of
Kotaluoto as disclosing that all charges for multiple charge plans are
deducted from the same prepaid balance, which corresponds to multiple
service flows “referencing” the same charging pool (col. 3, ll. 50-67; col. 4,
ll. 1-26; col. 5, ll. 23-34).
Appellants also assert that claims 77, 86, 90, 93, 96-102, 105-111, and
117-119 are allowable for the same reasons that claims 64 and 82 are
allowable. As we sustain the rejections of claims 64 and 82 for the reasons
set forth above, we will sustain these rejections as well.
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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh