Ex Parte YI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

13408371 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/408,371
93823 7590
BGL/Huawei
P.O. Box 10395
Chicago, IL 60610
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
02/29/2012 Qiang YI
09/29/2016
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.
13674-748 6881
EXAMINER
LUO, ANTHONY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/29/2016 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte QIANG YI, HUI JIN, SHUIPING LONG, and XIAOY AN DUAN
Appeal2015-004632
Application 13/408,371
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC S. FRAHM, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
.6. .. .. , 1 .. • .. ,..... ,- T T r'1 I'\ l\ -1 ,..... Al / '\. I"" , "1
Appeuants' seeK our review unaer j) u.~.L. s U4~aJ or me
Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-10, which are all the claims
pending in the present application. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-004632
Application 13/408,371
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present application relates to a multi-session transfer method, a
call control device, and a Service Continuity Application Server. Spec. i-f 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations emphasized and bracketed
material added):
1. A multi-session transfer method, wherein: [preamble]
after completion of transferring a first session of a terminal from
a source network domain to a target network domain, the method
comprises:
receiving, by a Mobile Switching Center (MSC) server
that serves the terminal in the target network domain, [L 1] state
information of a second session of the terminal from a Service
Centralization and Continuity (SCC) Access Server (AS),
wherein the second session needs to be transferred, the state
information comprises [L2] a media type of the second session
to be transferred, and media types comprise video; and
sending to the SCC AS, by the MSC server, [L3] a request
for transferring voice media of the second session to be
transferred [L4] if the MSC server determines that the target
network domain is incapable of transmitting video data,
whereupon the SCC AS [L5] converts the second session to be
transferred into a voice session for transferring or releases the
second session to be transferred after receiving the request.
The Rejections
Claims 1-5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Adamczyk
(US 2007/0100981 Al; May 3, 2007) and Nayak (US 2004/0180689 Al;
Sept. 16, 2004).
Claims 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Adamczyk,
Nayak, and Buckley (US 2010/0329244 Al; Dec. 30, 2010).
2
Appeal2015-004632
Application I3/408,37I
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Adamczyk meets the preamble and limitations
LI, L2, L3, and L5 of claim I, specifically explaining how particular
descriptions in Adamczyk teach or suggest these limitations. Final Act. 5-6;
Ans. I I-I4. Appellants assert Adamczyk fails to teach or suggest the
preamble and limitations LI, L2, L3, and L5 of claim I, but Appellants do
not explain persuasively why the cited descriptions in Adamczyk would not
teach or suggest the corresponding limitations to one of ordinary skill in the
art. Br. 6-8. A mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion
that the corresponding elements are not found in the prior art is insufficient
to show error. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv) (20I2); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d I349,
I357 (Fed. Cir. 20I I). Thus we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments
regarding the preamble and limitations LI, L2, L3, and L5 of claim 1.
The Examiner further finds Nayak meets limitation L4 of claim I. Br.
6-7; Ans. I4. Appellants contend the Examiner errs because, unlike
limitation L4, "the downgrade determination in Nayak is directed to the
wireless terminal itself." Br. 9. We are not persuaded by Appellants'
argument. Nayak describes, "downgrading the communication between the
first wireless terminal and the second wireless terminal to a voice
communication when it is determined that the second wireless terminal does
not have the video call capability." Nayak i-f 6 (emphasis added). Contrary
to Appellants' assertion, the cited paragraph ofNayak does not describe the
downgrade determination is sent to the wireless terminal. Rather, this
portion ofNayak is silent regarding which entity determines the downgrade
is needed. Moreover, Nayak elaborates that call management module I30 of
3
Appeal2015-004632
Application 13/408,371
mobile switching center (MSC) 114 makes this determination. See, e.g.,
Nayak i-f 27, ("mobile switching center (MSC) 114 may include a call
management module 130, which may .... query VLR 116, HLR 118, or
both to determine whether the second wireless terminal has the at least one
call processing functionality, for example, the capability to handle video
calls"). Thus we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the cited
"downgrade determination in Nayak is directed to the wireless terminal
itself." Br. 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
claim 1. Appellants advance no further arguments concerning claims 2-10.
Br. 9-10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejections of these claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-10 as obvious.
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
4