Ex Parte Xiong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2016

13630624 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016)

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.
13/630,624 09/28/2012 Xue Xiong ALC 3789 3989
76614 7590 12/16/2016
Terry W. Kramer, Esq.
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
EXAMINER
ULYSSE, JAEL M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2016 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 XUE XIONG, KUGENDRAN SABARATNAM, and
SHANAWAZ SHAIK
Appeal 2015-008011
Application 13/630,624
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 3—10, 12—16, and 18—20. Claims 2, 11, and 17 are
canceled. See App. Br. 11—17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ disclosure relates to rules and procedures for
telecommunication networks. See Spec. 11; Abstract. Claims 1, 8, and 14
are independent.
Appeal 2015-008011
Application 13/630,624
Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis added):
1. A method performed by a policy and charging rules node
(PCRN) device for implementing a Policy and Charging Control
(PCC) procedure with SDF inputs, the method comprising:
receiving a PCC request with a Service Data Flow (SDF)
input;
determining if the PCC request is from a user equipment
(UE);
mapping flow direction information from the SDF input
request into a unified flow-direction record stored in the PCRN;
mapping a SDF input request that specifies a bidirectional
flow into two unified flow-direction records',
generating PCC, Application Detection and Control
(ADC), and/ or Quality of Service (QoS) rules based upon the
unified flow-direction record;
determining if a flow direction is defined on an output
interface;
mapping the unified flow-direction record into a flow-
information Attribute Value Pair (AVP) associated with the
generated PCC, ADC, and/or QoS rules; and
delivering the generated PCC, ADC, and/or QoS rules to
another node.
The Examiner’s Rejections1
Claims 1, 3—10, 12—16, and 18—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Cutler (US 2011/0202485 Al; Aug. 18,
2011) and Pancorbo Marcos (US 2012/0246325 Al; Sept. 27, 2012). Final
Act. 6.
1 The Final Action contains an objection to claim 16 (Final Act. 5);
Appellants subsequently amended claim 16 on April 8, 2015 and the
Examiner indicated the objection was withdrawn in an interview on April
24, 2015.
2
Appeal 2015-008011
Application 13/630,624
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred.
We adopt the conclusions and findings of fact made by the Examiner in the
Final Office Action, Advisory Action, and Examiner’s Answer as our own,
and we highlight the following points for emphasis.
Independent Claims
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1,
because “the Examiner fails to point out mapping into two unified flow-
direction records as claimed.” App. Br. 6. Appellants further contend
“Cutler fails to disclose mapping based upon a specific SDF input request
for a bidirectional flow” (App. Br. 6) and “Cutler’s AVP is not equivalent to
[two unified flow-direction records]” (App. Br. 7).
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner correctly
finds Cutler teaches that:
by translating an application request message into a number of
requested service flows, a policy and charging rules node may
generate a rule to provide each requested service flow that is
dynamically based on the requested application, subscriber data,
and/or rule-based policy decisions.
Ans. 5 (emphasis removed, quoting Cutler 110). The Examiner also finds,
and we agree, that Cutler “illustrates an arrangement relating to PCC rules in
a table” in which “flow status-515 is used to indicate upstream or
downstream direction” and “represents bi-directional (two directions) flow.”
Ans. 5 (citing Cutler, Fig. 5,1 65). Cutler thus teaches or suggests mapping
a bidirectional message into multiple service flows, within the meaning of
the claim. See Advisory Act. 2 (“‘direction’ is not given an special meaning
3
Appeal 2015-008011
Application 13/630,624
in the [S]pecification[,] therefore for those skilled in the art it can mean what
is cited in Cutler i.e. paragraph 0065 ‘upstream and downstream
directions.’”). Appellants’ arguments do not persuade us the Examiner
erred. See Ans. 4; cf. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (“[I]n
considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not
only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one
skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.”); see
also KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 4—10, 12—14, 16, and 18—20 which are not separately
argued. See App. Br. 7, 9.
Dependent Claims 3 and 15
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claim 3,
which recites “copying the flow information from the AF request directly to
unified flow-direction records.” App. Br. 8. Particularly, Appellants
contend “Cutler’s SPR cannot reasonably be seen as equivalent to the
claimed unified flow-direction records” and “[t]he Examiner has failed to
address the recitation of directly copying the flow information from the AF
request to unified flow-direction records.” App. Br. 8.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. The Examiner finds, and
we agree, that the claimed “unified flow direction record” encompasses
Cutler’s SDF filter “depicted in Figure 5 under SDF (service data flow)
filter-510... and flow status-515 (unidirectional meaning one direction and
bidirectional meaning two directions),” because Appellants’ Specification
indicates that “unified flow direction record describes SDF filter, depending
4
Appeal 2015-008011
Application 13/630,624
on whether the flow is unidirectional or bidirectional.” Ans. 8 (citing Spec.
135). The Examiner additionally finds that “[t]he SPR [subscription profile
repository] stores information such as AF [application function] requests and
PCC rules which are copied from the PCRN[;] in other words[,] by storing
information in the SPR[,] the information is being copied.” Final Act. 10
(citing Cutler, Fig. 1). Cutler Figure 1 shows a direct connection between
PCRN 136 and SPR 138, thus supporting the Examiner’s finding that the
claimed direct copying takes place between PCRN 136 and SPR 138. We
do not find Appellants’ argument that “Cutler’s SPR cannot reasonably be
seen as equivalent to the claimed unified flow-direction records” (App. Br.
8; see also Reply Br. 3) persuasive because the arguments are conclusory.
See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney
arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie
case).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim
3, and dependent claim 15 not separately argued. See App. Br. 8.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—10, 12—16, and
18-20.
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