Ex Parte Zhang et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 16, 201613087700 (P.T.A.B. May. 16, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation