Ex Parte Yee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 3, 2016

12825654 (P.T.A.B. May. 3, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/825,654 06/29/2010
76614 7590
Terry W, Kramer, Esq,
Kramer & Amado, P.C.
330 John Carlyle Street
3rd Floor
Alexandria, VA 22314
05/05/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Matthew Yee
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 3549 2091
EXAMINER
JOSHI, SURAJ M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2447
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/05/2016 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 MATTHEW YEE and ROBERT ALEXANDER MANN_
Appeal2014-006873
Application 12/825,654
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG and
TERRENCE W. MCMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The present invention relates to telecommunications networks. See
generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal2014-006873
Application 12/825,654
1. A method performed by a Policy and Charging Rules Node
(PCRN) for managing communications sessions, the method
compnsmg:
determining that a session is suspect of being inactive;
sending a non-empty innocuous message to a network
component that initiated the session;
waiting for a response from the network component;
if the PCRN receives a response from the network
component, determining whether the session is inactive based
on the response; and
taking at least one management action for the session if
the session is inactive.
References and Rejections
Claims 1-10 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Delsesto (US 2011/0225280 Al, published Sept. 16,
2011) and Bodin, et. al., "Auditing Functionality in Diameter," Pages 1-15
("Bodin").
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Delsesto, Bodin, and Przybysz (US 2009/0215454 Al, published Aug.
27, 2009).
ANALYSIS
The Obviousness Rejection
We disagree with Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 6-11; Reply Br.
1---6), and agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in
the Final Rejection and Answer to the extent they are consistent with our
2
Appeal2014-006873
Application 12/825,654
analysis below. Therefore, we limit our discussion to the following points
for emphasis.
On this record, we find the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1.
Appellants contend Delsesto and Bodin do not collectively teach
"determining that a session is suspect of being inactive; sending a non-empty
innocuous message to a network component that initiated the session," as
recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 1-3. In
particular, Appellants assert:
In both cases [ofDelsesto's paragraphs 65 and 68], this is a
final determination that a session is either active or inactive. In
contrast, the claim language refers to a session that is only
suspect of being inactive .
. . . Bodin's teachings are inapplicable here because Delsesto
already has a result code indicating whether the session remains
active or has become inactive. Consequently, there would be no
motivation to apply Bodin's teachings to Delsesto.
In contrast, the claim language session uses the non-
empty innocuous message as a test signal, determining whether
the session "suspect of being inactive" is actually inactive. No
such testing is needed in Delsesto because Delsesto has already
made a final decision.
App. Br. 6-7; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants have not persuaded us of error.
First, the Examiner reasonably finds DelSesto teaches "determining
that a session is suspect of being inactive," because:
according to DelSesto [i-fi-f 65, 52], a trigger may be based upon
the expiration of an inactivity timer, which will trigger the audit
procedure. The inactivity timer does not determine whether a
session is inactive or active, it merely acts as a trigger to start
the audit procedure, thus giving a reason to suspect that there is
an inactive session.
3
Appeal2014-006873
Application 12/825,654
Ans. 14--15; see also Ans. 2-3.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the
Examiner's specific findings.
Second, the Examiner finds-and Appellants do not adequately
dispute-DelSesto teaches "sending a [] message to a network component
that initiated the session," and Bodin teaches the "non-empty innocuous"
feature. See Ans. 15-16. Therefore, the Examiner reasonably finds
DelSesto and Bodin collectively teach "sending a non-empty innocuous
message to a network component that initiated the session," as required by
claim 1. See Ans. 15-16. Using Bodin' s non-empty innocuous technique in
the DelSesto method would have predictably used prior art elements
according to their established functions-an obvious improvement. See KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Further, the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness (Ans.
3-4; 15-16), and Appellants fail to adequately critique the Examiner's
reasoning for combining the teachings of DelSesto and Bodin. Appellants'
argument of improper combination is unpersuasive, because it
mischaracterizes the combination proposed by the Examiner.
Finally, Appellants' assertion that the references fail to teach "waiting
for a response from the network component; if the PCRN receives a
response from the network component, determining whether the session is
inactive based on the response" (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3) amounts to
unsupported general assertion and therefore, is unpersuasive.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1, and independent claims 10 and 15 for similar reasons.
4
Appeal2014-006873
Application 12/825,654
For similar reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent
claims 3-9, 11-14, and 17-20, as Appellants argue they are allowable
because they depend from allowable independent claims (App. Br. 9-10).
Regarding dependent claims 2 and 16, Appellants argue Delsesto does
not teach "determining that a session is suspect of being inactive if the
elapsed time since the activity timestamp exceeds a suspect inactivity time,"
as recited in claim 2 (emphases added). See App. Br. 8; Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellants contend contrary to the claim, "Delsesto's service node 'may
terminate the existing session' based upon the inactivity timer. A
terminated session cannot reasonably be regarded as equivalent to the
claimed 'suspect' session." App. Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
Appellants' argument is unpersuasive because it does not address the
Examiner's specific findings. The Examiner reasonably finds:
As mentioned above [with respect to claim 1], DelSesto teaches
the use of an inactivity timer, which may act as a trigger for the
audit procedure. Thus once an inactivity timer has elapsed, the
system may suspect an inactive session, and then call the audit
procedure to make an actual determination concerning the
session state.
Ans. 16; see also Ans. 4--5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims
2 and 16.
Reply Brief
To the extent Appellants advance new arguments in the Reply Brief
without showing good cause, Appellants have waived such arguments. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
5
Appeal2014-006873
Application 12/825,654
argue:
Specifically, in the Reply Brief and for the first time, Appellants
Delsesto is silent regarding an activity timestamp. Thus,
Delsesto cannot compare the elapsed time to a suspect
inactivity time.
Reply Br. 5.
Appellants have waived such argument because it is untimely, and
Appellants have not shown any good cause for the belated presentation. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20.
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
6