Ex Parte Watson et alDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJun 24, 201110555914 (B.P.A.I. Jun. 24, 2011) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation