Ex Parte ZHANG et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 16, 2016

13087700 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/087,700 04/15/2011
99643 7590 05/18/2016
Staas & Halsey LLP
1201 New York Avenue, NW
Suite 700
Washington, DC 20005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Yafeng 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.
2230.1121 6802
EXAMINER
DAVIS, ZACHARY A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/18/2016 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):
ptomail@s-n-h.com
uspatent@huawei.com
ggamer@s-n-h.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte Y AFENG ZHANG and LEI MI 1
Appeal2014-004624
Application 13/087,700
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-20. Oral arguments were heard on May 5, 2016. A transcript of
the hearing will be placed in the record in due course. We have jurisdiction
over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. as the real party in
interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004624
Application 13/087 ,700
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' invention is directed to implementing a hot-lining
function, within the general field of communications. Abstract, Spec. i-f 2.
[A] hot-lining function is able to stop a normal packet data
service application of the user, notify the user that the packet data
service application is already blocked, instruct the user to solve
the problem, and recover normal operations when the problem is
solved, or terminate the service when the problem fails to be
solved.
Spec. i-f 3. According to the Specification, exemplary scenarios of when a
hot-lining function may be used include directing a pre-paid user with low or
insufficient funds to a recharge page, or sending advertisements to an online
user. Spec. i-fi-1 146, 149.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics:
1. A method for implementing a hot-lining function; comprising:
acquiring a hot-lining function enabling message sent from a hot-
lining application (HLA) network element that provides a hot-lining service,
wherein the hot-lining function enabling message carries hot-lining rule
information; and
enabling a hot-lining function according to the hot-lining rule
information, and instructing a hot-lining device (HLD) to enable the hot-
lining function according to the hot-lining rule information in order for the
HLA to provide the hot-lining service.
2
Appeal2014-004624
Application 13/087 ,700
The Examiner ;s Rejection2
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bui et al. (US 7,808,942 B2; Oct. 5, 2010 (pub. Mar. 5,
2009)) ("Bui") and Igarashi et al. (US 7 ,277 ,948 B2; Oct. 2, 2007)
("Igarashi") or, alternatively, the combination of Kavanaugh (US
2009/0141707 Al; June 4, 2009) and Igarashi. Final Act. 9-14.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bui and Igarashi,
or, alternatively, Kavanaugh and Igarashi, teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation of claim 1?
ANALYSIS 3
Appellants contend the Examiner erred, inter alia, in finding the
combination of Bui and Igarashi teaches or suggests "the hot-lining function
enabling message that carries hot-lining rule information is sent from a hot-
lining application (HLA) network element that provides a hot-lining
service," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12 (emphases omitted); Reply Br.
3--4. In support of their position, Appellants explain the MIP (Mobile-IP)
2 The Examiner's rejection of claims 10-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph has been withdrawn and, accordingly, is not before us. Ans. 2-3.
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
September 23, 2013 ("App. Br."); the Reply Brief filed February 24, 2014
("Reply Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed December 23, 2013 ("Ans.");
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed April 11, 2013, from which
this Appeal is taken, and Appellants' arguments made during the Oral
Hearing held May 5, 2016.
3
Appeal2014-004624
Application 13/087 ,700
home agent in Bui corresponds to the claimed hot-lining device and Bui's
account setup server corresponds to the hot-lining application. App. Br. 12.
Appellants argue Bui does not teach sending a hot-lining policy from the
account setup server or from the MIP home agent. App. Br. 12.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive of error because it is not
responsive to the Examiner's rejection. 4 As the Examiner explains, the
account setup server in Bui was not relied upon as suggested by Appellants,
but rather Igarashi was cited to teach sending a (hot-lining function)
enabling message to an authentication, authorization and accounting (AAA)
network element (claim 6) (Final Act. 10-12) or sending said message from
a (hot-lining application) network element that provides a service (claim 1)
(Ans. 9--12). See also Ans. 14. The Examiner further explains, and
Appellants do not persuasively rebut, because HLA (hot-lining application)
was not a term that had a well-known meaning to a person of ordinary skill
in the art at the time of the invention, it is "interpreted as any element which
sends an analogous 'enabling message' which configures the network to
provide a service." Ans. 14. Accordingly, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, "the source of the enabling message which configures the network to
provide a service is either the 'network control mechanism 80' or the AAAH
as seen in lgarashi." Ans. 14 (citing Igarashi, col. 5, 1. 55---col. 6, 1. 15,
col. 16, 1. 20). The Examiner also correctly notes that "although the claim
4 We note that in the Final Office Action, the Examiner selected claim 6 as
representative of claims 1, 6, 10, 13, and 17 and the Appellants present
arguments choosing claim 1 as representative. See Final Act. 9--12 cf App.
Br. 9. In the Answer, the Examiner presents his findings as they relate to
claim 1. See Ans. 4--12.
4
Appeal2014-004624
Application 13/087 ,700
requires that the 'HLA [] provide[s] the hot-lining service'; what service is
actually provided is never discussed in any claim." Ans. 15.
Regarding Igarashi, Appellants contend Igarashi "discusses updating,
registering and deleting service profiles ... [but] discusses nothing about
hot-lining." App. Br. 19. Additionally, Appellants argue that "the entity
that provides the service profile (user, service control database and AAAH)
is different from the entity that provides the service (foreign agent and home
agent)." App. Br. 15, 20-22; Reply Br. 5.
Again, Appellants' argument is not persuasive of Examiner error
because it is not responsive to the Examiner's rejection. The Examiner
relies on Bui, or, alternatively, Kavanaugh as teaching hot-lining functions
and hot-lining rule information. See, e.g., Final Act. 9--12 (citing Bui, col. 3,
1. 40, col. 5, 1. 18, col. 11, 1. 15; Kavanaugh i-fi-16, 39, 44, 48). Further, the
Examiner did not rely on the service control database of Igarashi as
corresponding to the HLA, but instead relies on the AAAH of network
control mechanism. Ans. 16. Additionally, as the Examiner explains,
Appellants have not persuasively shown that the foreign and home agents of
Igarashi are the only nodes that provide services. Ans. 17.
Contrary to Appellants' interpretation of Igarashi's operation as
expressed in Figure 3 of the Appeal Brief (which we note is not a Figure
from Igarashi), Appellants omit the AAAF, which is cited in steps (S5),
(S12), and (S13). See Igarashi, col. 5, 1. 64---col. 6, 1. 37; Ans. 18. As stated
in step (S5), "the AAAH 20 produces and sends a best-effort service profile
to the AAAF 30 and home agent 40." Igarashi, col. 6, 11. 9-12, see also
Igarashi, col. 6, 11. 31-35 (step (S12)). Thus, we agree with the Examiner
5
Appeal2014-004624
Application 13/087 ,700
that, at least, the AAAH is the source of the enabling message that
configures the network to provide a service. Ans. 14.
Further, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking
references individually where, as here, the ground of unpatentability is based
upon the teachings of a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 426 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test for obviousness is whether the
combination of references, taken as a whole, would have suggested the
patentee's invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art. In re Merck
& Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Appellants additionally assert the Examiner fails to provide rationale
in support of motivation of one skilled in the art "to modify Igarashi's
service profile to include a hot lining function, when both Bui and
Kavanaugh are silent on the noted features of claim 1 and Igarashi is silent
on the concept of hot-lining." App. Br. 20.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because, as the Examiner
explains:
If a system (Bui or Kavanaugh) contains hot-lining rules,
those rules must be set, configured, or initialized in some
manner. Just because Bui and Kavanaugh do not disclose
configuring an AAA server does not mean that no AAA server
has ever been configured. Examiner submits, that to the extent
lgarashi discloses configuring an AAA server (see above), such
would have been obvious to combine with analogous inventions
(Bui or Kavanaugh) which utilize an authentication server, but
do not disclose how to configure the server, in order to
incorporate the session setting features of lgarashi to set the rules
as detail[ e ]d in Bui and Kavanaugh.
Ans. 21. Further, the Examiner finds:
A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention
would have modified Bui, or in the alternative, Kavanaugh with
6
Appeal2014-004624
Application 13/087 ,700
Igarashi by including the AAA server and associated session
setting methods. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of invention to modify Bui, or in the
alternative, Kavanaugh with Igarashi in order to implement the
required, but unclaimed rule setting features of Bui and
Kavanaugh (Bui 11: 15, Kavanaugh [0006], Kavanaugh [0039])
with the session setting features of Igarashi.
Final Act. 12. Thus, we find the Examiner has provided a factual basis and
articulated reasoning with a rational underpinning to support the proposed
combination of references and conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int 'l
Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellants also argue, to the extent the Examiner relies on the
combination of Kavanaugh and Igarashi, Kavanaugh fails to disclose "a hot-
lining function enabling message that carries hot-lining rule information and
sent from a hot-lining application (HLA) network element that provides a
hot-lining service, because the network architecture in the instant claim 1 is
completely different from Kavanaugh." App. Br. 23 (emphases omitted).
Additionally, Appellants assert Kavanaugh uses a completely different
mechanism of implementing hot-lining services and does not teach a HLD or
AAA. App. Br. 23.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because claim 1, as argued by
Appellants, does not require an AAA network element. Further, as the
Examiner explains, the claimed HLD "has no specific definition which
would require particular structure or acts be performed." Ans. 5, 22.
Additionally, we find Appellants' arguments that Bui or Kavanaugh
fails to disclose an extensible architecture and method for deploying a hot-
line service (see, e.g., App. Br. 9--10, 12-13, 23-24) unpersuasive as they
are not commensurate with the claim language, and thus, for that reason, do
7
Appeal2014-004624
Application 13/087 ,700
not demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection. See In re Selj~ 671 F.2d
1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be
relied upon for patentability).
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. For
similar reasons, we sustain the rejection of independent claims 6, 10, 13, and
17 and dependent claims 2-5, 7-9, 11, 12, 14--16, and 18-20, which were
not argued separately. App. Br. 24.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
8