Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 29, 2016

13057619 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/057,619 02/04/2011
32294 7590 03/02/2016
Squire PB (NV A/DC Office)
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE
14THFLOOR
VIENNA, VA 22182-6212
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Shun Liang Zhang
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.
089229.00410 4075
EXAMINER
KUSYK, JANUSZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2494
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2016 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):
IPGENERAL TYC@SQUIREpb.COM
SONIA.WHITNEY@SQUIREpb.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUN LIANG ZHANG, YI ZHANG,
and
WEI HUA ZHOU
Appeal2014-003202
Application 13/057 ,619
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and
JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges.
KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal2014-003202
Application 13/057,619
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a communication network
including an access service network entity, a policy and charging rules
entity, and an authentication, authorization and accounting entity (Abstract).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the subject
matter on appeal.
1. A communication network, the communication
network comprising:
an access service network entity;
a policy and charging rules entity; and
an authentication, authorization and accounting entity,
wherein the access service network entity is configured to
provide capabilities to the authentication, authorization and
accounting entity wherein the authentication, authorization and
accounting entity is configured to decide whether the
capabilities are to be activated and configured to provide a
decision to the access service network entity and
wherein the access service network entity is configured
to provide the decision to the policy and charging rules entity.
REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1---6, 8-12, and 16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of TS_23.203 ("3GPP TS
23.203, 3rd Generation Partnership Project; Technical Specification Group
Services and System Aspects; Policy and Charging Control Architecture
(Release 7), 3GPP Organizational Partners," 2007) and Grayson (US
2008/0046963 Al; pub. Feb. 21, 2008).
The Examiner rejected claims 7, 13-15, and 17 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of TS_23.203, Grayson, and
Akgun (US 7 ,366,509 B2; iss. Apr. 29, 2008).
2
Appeal2014-003202
Application 13/057,619
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds TS_23 .203 teaches an access service network
entity as recited in claim 1. Specifically, the Examiner finds TS_23 .203 's
gateway with a policy and charging enforcement function is an access
service network entity because it provides access to a visited network (Ans.
12-13; Final Act. 5).
Appellants contend TS_23.203 's gateway is not an access service
network entity because it does not belong to an access network connecting
subscribers to their immediate service provider; rather, the gateway belongs
to a core network connecting local providers to each other (App. Br. 14;
Reply Br. 7). Appellants' argument, however, is not commensurate with the
scope of claim 1. Claim 1 does not require the access service network entity
to be in a network connecting subscribers to service providers, and does not
preclude the access service network entity from connecting providers to each
other.
Appellants further contend the claimed access service network entity
is not just a gateway (Reply Br. 5). Rather, Appellants argue, their
Specification defines an access service network entity as an entity providing
network entry in an access service network, which is a term of art distinct
from a core network (App. Br. 13-14 (citing Spec. 4:1---6); Reply Br. 4---6
(citing Spec. 9:28-11:6)). Therefore, according to Appellants, TS_23.203's
gateway cannot be the claimed access service network entity because the
gateway "does not and cannot provide network entry given that the
[gateway] is part of the core network as opposed to the radio access
network" (App. Br. 14 (emphasis added)).
3
Appeal2014-003202
Application 13/057,619
We agree with the Examiner that Appellants' Specification does not
provide an explicit and exclusive definition of the claimed term "access
service network entity" as Appellants contend. The Specification merely
provides discussion of non-limiting examples of the term (Ans. 13 (citing
Spec. 2:5-26)). 1 Appellants' Specification also does not state an access
service network entity must provide network entry in a network distinct from
a core network, as Appellants argue (App. Br. 14).2 Thus, even accepting
Appellants' contention that an access service network is a term of art, we
agree with the Examiner's findings that TS_23.203 's gateway is an access
service network entity.
Appellants also contend TS_23 .203 's gateway is not an access service
network entity configured to provide capabilities, as required in claim 1
(App. Br. 15). However, Appellants' contention does not address the
Examiner's specific findings; it merely restates the language of claim 1 and
asserts TS_23.203 does not teach the claimed limitations (App. Br. 15;
Reply Br. 7-8). See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
("[T]he Board [has] reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to 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.") Moreover, we agree with the Examiner's findings
that TS_23 .203 's gateway is an access service network entity configured to
1 Appellants' Specification broadly describes "[t]he term 'access service
network entity' (ASN) may denote an entity which provides an access service
to a network, such as a network provider" and "is adapted for providing
capabilities (such as any capability related to a network-based service[)]"
(Spec. 4:1---6 (emphasis added), 2:13-15 (emphasis added)).
2 We note Appellants' Specification does not use the term core network.
4
Appeal2014-003202
Application 13/057,619
provide capabilities including information about online charging support
(Final Act. 5).
Appellants further contend Grayson does not teach or suggest
providing a decision from an access service network entity as required in
claim 1, and argue Grayson merely provides an acknowledgement that
"confirms the receipt or non-receipt (ACK/NACK) of a message and does
not contain any decisions to activate" (App. Br. 17 (emphasis added)).
Appellants' contention is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1.
Claim 1 recites a decision provided to and from the access service network
entity, but claim 1 does not recite a decision to activate. Additionally, we
agree with the Examiner's finding Grayson's acknowledgement is "a
decision to complete the undergoing procedure," which is commensurate
with a "decision" as claimed (Ans. 14).
In light of the broad terms recited in claim 1 and the arguments
presented, Appellants have failed to clearly distinguish the claimed
invention over the prior art relied on by the Examiner. Therefore, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
With regard to independent claim 13 rejected based on a combination
of TS_23.203, Grayson, and Akgun, Appellants provide substantially the
same arguments as for claim 1 (App. Br. 14, 16-17). Appellants provide no
substantive arguments regarding Akgun other than to state Akgun does not
cure the deficiencies of TS_23.203 and Grayson (App. Br. 18, 19). Thus, for
the same reasons as claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
13.
With respect to dependent claims 2-12 and 14--17 argued separately,
Appellants provide arguments similar to those provided for claims 1 and 13,
5
Appeal2014-003202
Application 13/057,619
restating that TS_23.203, Grayson, and Akgun do not teach an access
service network entity (App. Br. 19-29). Appellants further restate the
claim language of the dependent claims and assert the recited limitations are
not found in the prior art (App. Br. 19-29). As noted above, such arguments
are not substantive arguments of Examiner error (see 3 7 C.F .R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2013); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d at 1357). Thus, for
the same reasons as independent claims 1 and 13, we sustain the rejections
of dependent claims 2-12 and 14--17.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-17 is affirmed.
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).
6