Ex Parte Yussouff et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 29, 2016

12951890 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 29, 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.
12/951,890 11/22/2010 Ashraf Yussouff 20100681 1566
7590 12/01/201625537
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
CHOUDHRY, SAMINA F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/01/2016 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ASHRAF YUSSOUFF,
DANILO PUSELJIC, and KANTI S. PATEL1
Appeal 2015-005447
Application 12/951,890
Technology Center 2400
Before DANIEL N. FISHMAN, SHARON FENICK, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—5, 8, 9, 11—18, and 20—24, which constitute all pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify as the real party in interest Verizon Communications
Inc. and its subsidiary companies. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal 2015-005447
Application 12/951,890
Introduction
Appellants explain that typical cellular network services charge for
long distance calls “at a much higher per-minute cost than the per-minute
cost applied to regular calls within the subscriber’s calling plan” (Spec 11),
and that subscribers may prefer “a network service that permits [a] mobile
device to connect calls through [a VoIP (Voice over IP)] network at less
expensive rates th[a]n would normally be incurred” (Spec 122 (reference
numbers omitted)). Claim 1 is representative:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, at a first network device, a Voice over Internet
Protocol (VoIP) service activation request associated with a
customer requesting activation of a VoIP network service for a
plurality of subscribers, wherein the service activation request
identifies types of mobile devices associated with the plurality
of subscribers;
identifying, by the first network device, one or more
second network devices based on the types of mobile devices
associated with the plurality of subscribers; and
sending, based on the received VoIP service activation
request, a subscriber activation request from the first network
device to the one or more second network devices that each
stores a mobile application, to cause the one or more second
network devices to attempt to upload the mobile application to
mobile devices associated with the plurality of subscribers,
wherein the mobile application includes functionality for
identifying, upon initiation of a call from a mobile device of the
mobile devices associated with the plurality of subscribers, a
local access number for connecting a local access call through
a local access point of a mobile network operator (MNO)
network to a VoIP network that establishes the call to a call
destination using VoIP.
(App. Br. 27 (Claims App’x) (dispositive requirement emphasized).)
2
Appeal 2015-005447
Application 12/951,890
Rejections2
Claims 1—5, 15—18, 21, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Poczo (US 2007/0072605 Al; Mar. 29, 2007), Siu
et al. (US 2010/0311391 Al; Dec. 9, 2010), and Larsson et al. (US
2006/0268838 Al; Nov. 30, 2006). (Final Act. ^U14.)
Claims 8 and 20 stand rejected as obvious over Poczo, Siu, Larsson,
and Reed et al. (US 2009/0249076 Al; Oct. 1, 2009). (Final Act. 1^U15.)
Claims 9, 12—14, 22, and 23 stand rejected as obvious over Storey
(US 2007/0250711 Al; Oct. 25, 2007), Mehta et al. (US 2002/0131404 Al;
Sept. 19, 2002), and Larsson. (Final Act. 15—20.)
Claim 11 stands rejected as obvious over Storey, Mehta, Larsson, and
Reed. (Final Act. 20—21.)
ANALYSIS
The Examiner relies on Larsson for teaching or suggesting the
dispositive requirement of claim 1. (Final Act. 6—7 (citing Larsson H19—
21, 24, 38, 49, 51).) Appellants argue the Examiner errs because Larsson
“merely discloses that the third party VoIP [application] sends application
data to a third party server over the Internet,” which fails to “disclose or
suggest that the third party VoIP application includes functionality for
identifying a local access number for connecting a local access call through
a local access point of Tan MNO] network to a VoIP network that establishes
the call to a call destination using VoIP.” (App. Br. 14). The Examiner
2 We note the Examiner rejected claims 13—17 under 35 U.S.C. § 101
as directed to non-statutory subject matter (Final Act. 12) but then withdrew
the rejection (Ans. 2).
3
Appeal 2015-005447
Application 12/951,890
answers by pointing to Larsson figures 1 and 8 and paragraphs 20, 49, and
50 as teaching the disputed limitation. (Id. 8—9.)
As discussed in Larsson’s background section, Figure 1 is a block
diagram showing a mobile device connecting a call from a mobile “radio
access” network to a third-party VoIP service and thereby “obtaining higher
quality radio access bearer service but not having to pay for it” (| 26), which
Larsson explains entails “send[ing] a QoS [Quality of Service] request that
includes an access point name (APN) to be used” (120). Larsson’s Figure 8,
which is part of a “solution that overcomes these problems [described with
respect to Figure 1]” (122), “is a diagram illustrating non-limiting example
signaling between various GPRS/EDGE [General Packet Radio
Service/Enhanced Data rates for Global Evolution] nodes” (133), which
Larsson explains entails “an ‘attach’ procedure by transmitting an Attach
Request message that provides among other things its IMSI [International
Mobile Subscriber Identity] (or other suitable identifier) to the SGSN
[Serving GPRS Support Node]” (149) and then, “[w]hen a mobile station
wants to start a VoIP session, it sends an Activate PDP [Packet Data
Protocol] Context Request message to the SGSN (151).
Certainly Larsson teaches connecting wireless calls through an access
point to a VoIP network. Claim 1 ’s dispositive requirement, however, is
more specific. We agree with Appellants that the relied-upon portions of
Larsson are silent as to how or whether a mobile application identifies a
local access number for connecting a local access call through an MNO’s
local access point as recited. While the Examiner maps the above-
mentioned disclosure to the disputed limitation, there is no explanation for
how and/or why Larsson’s above-discussed disclosure of connecting a
4
Appeal 2015-005447
Application 12/951,890
wireless call to a VoIP network teaches or suggests the recited “local”
features of the dispositive limitation.
We note, in an ex parte appeal, the Board “is basically a board of
review—we review . . . rejections made by patent examiners.” Ex parte
Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). “The review authorized by
35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the examiner . . . invite[s]
the [Bjoard to examine the application and resolve patentability in the first
instance.” Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999). The
Board’s primary role is to make our decision based on the findings and
conclusions presented by the Examiner. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1). We
express no opinion as to the validity of the pending claims in view of
additional explanation and/or references, and we leave any such further
consideration to the Examiner. Although the Board has authority to reject
claims under 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the
Board elects not to do so. See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
(MPEP) § 1213.02.
On the record before us, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, nor
do we sustain the rejection of the other independent claims, 9 and 15, each
of which include a commensurate version of the disputed limitation, nor do
we sustain the rejection of the dependent claims, 2—5, 8, 11—14, 16—18, and
20-24.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims
1-5, 8,9, 11-18, and 20-24.
REVERSED
5