Ex Parte Weppler et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 21, 2016

13156787 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/156,787 06/09/2011
76614 7590
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
11/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Cory R. Weppler
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 3712 5802
EXAMINER
BAUM, RONALD
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2439
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/23/2016 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 CORY R. WEPPLER, MIRA VRBASKI, LUI CHU YEUNG,
HAIQING MA, and GITA BEYK
Appeal2015-006356
Application 13/156,787 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JUSTIN BUSCH, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-8 and 10-20, which constitute all claims
pending in the application. Claim 9 has been canceled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claimed invention relates to network management, and more
specifically, to routing subscriber communications through underutilized
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2015-006356
Application 13/156,787
network nodes in order to reduce network congestion. Spec. ilil I-2. Claims
1, 8, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the
subject matter of the appeal, and reads as follows (disputed limitations in
italics):
1. A method performed by a network node for resolving
subscriber-related events, the method comprising:
receiving, at the network node, an indication of a first
event from a network monitor, wherein the first event is
associated with a subscriber;
identifying, by a rules engine, based on the first event, an
applicable rule of a plurality of rules, the applicable rule
specifying at least one action; and
initiating, by a subscriber event handler, peiformance of
the at least one action with respect to at least one session
associated with the subscriber, wherein-the subscriber event
handler receives the applicable rule from the rules engine.
App. Br. 12 (Claims App.).
Claims 1-8 and 10-20 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kwang (US 2009/0132579 Al; pub.
May 21, 2009) and Steenfeldt el al. (US 2003/0187992 Al; pub. Oct. 2,
2003) ("Steenfeldt"). Final Act. 6-26.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On this record, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in
2
Appeal 2015-006356
Application 13/156,787
the rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer,
and highlight the following for emphasis.
Claims 1, 8, and 14
Appellants argue the independent claims (1, 8, and 14) as a group,
with claim 1 representative of the group. App. Br. 7; see 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(iv). Appellants first contend the Examiner erred in finding the
prior art teaches a "subscriber event handler" that receives the applicable
rule, as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7. Specifically, Appellants argue the
Examiner erred in finding the subscriber event handler is "software," and
that the Examiner has not identified the teaching in the prior art of receiving
"the applicable rule." Id. We are not persuaded by Appellants' contentions.
The Examiner finds "subscriber event handler" taught in Kwang.
Ans. 2-3. Contrary to Appellants' argument, the Examiner does not rely
solely on Kwang's teachings of software, but rather "software-hardware
implementation" of a subscriber event handler. Ans. 2; Kwang i-fi-154--55; id.
i-f 50 (describing instructions executing from memory on servers or
workstations, connected to local area network). Further, as the Examiner
finds, the subscriber event handler taught in Kwang is "configurable,"
thereby receiving applicable "rules" (via configuration settings) as recited in
claim 1. Ans. 4 (citing Kwang i-fi-145, 52, 134, 138); see also Final Act. 11
(citing Kwang and Steenfeldt). Appellants' cursory argument, App. Br. 7,
does not identify the alleged error in the Examiner's finding. See In re
Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (we "require more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art"). We, therefore, are not persuaded of error.
3
Appeal 2015-006356
Application 13/156,787
Appellants also argue that the Examiner "fails to address" the claim
limitation "initiating, by a subscriber event handler, performance of at least
one action." App. Br. 7. The Final Action, however, does address this
limitation, finding it is taught in the combination of Steenfeldt with Kwang.
Final Act. 9, 11. As the Examiner finds, Kwang teaches various "actions"
by the subscriber event handler, such as sending data related to subscribers'
sessions. Ans. 5---6 (citing Kwang i-fi-145, 52-53, 78, 130); see also id. (citing
Steenfeldt i-fi-f 107, 121, 140, 211, 339). To the extent Appellants' position
relies on the contention there is no "subscriber event handler" taught in
Kwang or Steenfeldt, we are not persuaded by that contention for the reasons
discussed above. Otherwise, Appellants again have offered little explanation
of the alleged error in the Examiner's findings, and therefore we are not
persuaded. See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357.
Finally, Appellants argue the Examiner "fails to address" the claim 1
limitation "identifying; by a rules engine; based on the first event [associated
with a subscriber], an applicable rule." App. Br. 7-8 (emphasis in original).
In particular, Appellants argue, the Examiner "fails to identify either the
rules engine or the first event." App. Br. 8. As discussed above, however,
the Examiner finds Kwang teaches invoking "rules" by means of
configuration criteria. Ans. 6 (citing Kwang i-fi-145, 52-53, 78, 130).
Further, the Examiner finds Steenfeldt teaches a "service execution rule
mechanism" including a "rule engine." Ans. 6; Steenfeldt i-fi-f 140, 211, 339.
In both Kwang and Steenfeldt, the Examiner finds, the rules are triggered,
i.e. identified or enforced, by subscriber related activities or operations.
Ans. 6. Again, Appellants do not identify the error in the Examiner's
finding, App. Br. 7-8, and we discern none on the record before us.
4
Appeal 2015-006356
Application 13/156,787
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not demonstrated the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claims, and we sustain the rejection of
independent claims 1, 8, and 14 underpre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Kwang and Steenfeldt.
Claim 2
Appellants argue dependent claim 2 separately, asserting the
Examiner erred in finding the prior art teaches "identifying a group of
sessions" belonging to the subscriber, as recited in claim 2. App. Br. 9. We
disagree. As the Examiner finds, Kwang teaches "aggregat[ing] the weekly
or monthly total" of a user's "multiple sessions." Ans. 7; Final Act. 13-14
(citing Kwang i-f 126). We discern no error in the Examiner's finding that
the foregoing passage in Kwang also teaches "identifying a group of
sessions" belonging to the subscriber, because one of ordinary skill in the art
would understand that "aggregating" particular sessions of a user (e.g., a
monthly total) includes identifying the sessions to aggregate. Id.; see also
Kwang i-fi-116-19, 90, 119.
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of dependent claim 2 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kwang and Steenfeldt.
Remaining Claims
Appellants argue the remaining claims 3-7, 10-13, and 15-20, all of
which are dependent, are patentable for the same reasons as their base claims
1, 8, and 14. App. Br. 10. Because we do not find the Examiner erred with
respect to the independent claims, see supra, we also find no error regarding
the remaining dependent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
the remaining claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Kwang and Steenfeldt.
5
Appeal 2015-006356
Application 13/156,787
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8 and 10-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
6