Ex Parte Zheng

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 2, 2010

10409089 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 2, 2010)

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.
10/409,089 04/09/2003 Haihong Zheng 061715-0341 4994
30542 7590 07/06/2010
FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
P.O. BOX 80278
SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-0278
EXAMINER
WON, MICHAEL YOUNG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2455
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/06/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte HAIHONG ZHENG
_____________

Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, JOHN C. MARTIN, and
JOESPH F. RUGGIERO, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 2, 4 through 18, and 20 through 49.
We affirm in part.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for use during handover of a
mobile terminal from one policy enforcement entity to another. See Spec.
paras. 0002, 0020-23. Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A method for policy management in a network comprising
at least a mobile node, a policy decision entity, a first policy
enforcement entity and a second policy enforcement entity, wherein a
handover from the first to the second policy enforcement entity is to
be performed for the mobile node, the method comprising:
transferring context information related to the mobile node from
the first policy enforcement entity to the second policy enforcement
entity;
sending a policy session delete request from the first policy
enforcement entity to the policy decision entity; and
sending a policy session establishment request from the second
policy enforcement entity to the policy decision entity based on
information of the context information received from the first policy
enforcement entity.

REFERENCES
Sitaraman US 6,427,174 B1 Jul. 30, 2002
Chen US 2003/0142681 A1 Jul. 31, 2003
Sen US 6,947,399 B1 Sep. 20, 2005

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 2, 4 through 9, 12 through 18, 20
through 25, 27 through 33, 37 through 42, and 45 through 49 under 35
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

3

U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen in view of Sen. Answer 4-
14.2
The Examiner has rejected claims 10, 11, 26, 27, 34 through 36, 43,
and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Chen in view of
Sen and Sitaraman. Answer 14, 15.

ISSUES
Appellant argues on pages 10 through 22 of the Appeal Brief3 that the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 9, 12 through 18, 20 through
25, 27 through 33, 37 through 42, and 45 through 49 is in error. Initially we
note that Appellant’s arguments group independent claims 1 and 17 and their
dependent claims together and independent claims 5 and 21 and their
dependent claims together. Accordingly, we will address the claims in two
groups selecting independent claims 1 and 5 as representative of each group.

Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 13, 16 through 18, 20, 25, 27
through 30, and 32.4.
Appellant argues that Chen does not teach sending a policy session
delete request from a first policy enforcement point (PEP) to a policy
decision point (PDP) as recited in claims 1 and 17. Brief 12, 15, 16; Reply

2 Throughout this decision we refer to the Examiner’s Answer dated October
28, 2008.
3 Throughout this decision we refer to the Appeal Brief dated August 18,
2008, and the Reply Brief dated December 24, 2008.

4 We note that the Examiner included in the rejection claims 14 and 47;
however, these claims are dependent upon allowable claims 3 and 19
Footnote continued on next page.
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

4

Brief 2, 3. Appellant presents other arguments directed to claims 1 and 17;
however, we do not address these arguments as they are not dispositive of
the decision.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions with respect to independent claims 1
and 17 present us with the issue: Did the Examiner err in finding that the
combination of Chen and Sen teaches sending a policy decision delete
request from a policy enforcement entity to a policy decision entity as
recited in independent claims 1 and 17?

Rejection of claims 5 through 8, 15, 21 through 24, 31, 33, 37
through 42, 45, 46, 48, and 49.
Appellant argues that Chen is concerned with allowing traffic to be
sent to a mobile subscriber when the subscriber roams, which is different
than the claimed “handoff.” Brief 13-15. Appellant also argues that Chen
does not teach deleting the policy session locally as recited in claims 5 and
21. Brief 16.
Appellant also argues that Chen does not discuss operations related to
a session and that “the IP address of a mobile subscriber and a QoS profile
of the mobile subscriber cannot be interpreted to be analogous to an actual
policy session or policy session state.” Brief 16. Appellant argues that in
Chen the exchange of data occurs prior to the mobile subscriber moving to a
new domain, and as such Chen does not teach that the transfer occurs during
the handover. Brief 18. Further, Appellant argues that Chen and Sen do not

respectively. Accordingly we consider the inclusion of claims 14 and 47 to
be a typographical error.
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

5

teach that the transferred context information comprises an old policy
session identifier. Brief 19-23.
Thus, Appellant’s contentions with respect to independent claims 5
and 21 present us with the issues:
a) Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Chen and Sen
teaches a method for use in a mobile system used during a handover
from one policy enforcement entity to another as recited in claim 5?;
b) Did the Examiner err in finding that Chen teaches deleting the policy
session state locally in a policy enforcement entity as recited in claim
5?; and
c) Did the Examiner err in finding that combination of Chen and Sen
teaches a method of transferring context information between policy
enforcement entities and sending an update request from a new policy
enforcement entity as recited in claim 5?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
On the issue of obviousness, the Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he
obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the
words teaching, suggestion, and motivation.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007). Further, the Court stated “[t]he combination of
familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when
it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 416.
The Examiner need not give patentable weight to descriptive material
absent a new and unobvious functional relationship between the descriptive
material and the substrate. See In re Ngai, 367 F.3d 1336, 1338 (Fed. Cir.
2004); In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583-84 (Fed. Cir. 1994); Ex parte Curry,
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

6

84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005), aff’d, slip op. 06-1003 (Fed. Cir. June
2006).

FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Chen teaches a method for use on mobile networks where
edge/border routers (local nodes) maintain QoS profiles related to
the mobile station. Chen Abstract.
2. In Chen’s system the local nodes, QLNs, represent the policy
enforcement entities and the global server, QGS, represents the
policy decision entities. Chen para. 0043.
3. As a mobile station moves within the same domain, e.g., moves
between QLSs served by the same QGS, the mobile station is said
to roam. Chen paras. 0055, 0057.
4. When the mobile station moves such that it roams from one QLS to
another QLS, the QGS notifies the QLS that is no longer serving
the mobile station to delete the QoS profile entry for the mobile
station. Chen para. 0057.
5. Sen teaches a method for use in wireless data systems during
handoff where the individual radio network subsystems (RNS)
communicate handoff information between each other, thus
reducing messages through the core network (CN) and the
associated delays. Sen Abstract.
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

7

6. Sen teaches during hand off the source RNS (old RNS) transmits a
relocation request message to the target RNS (new RNS). The
relocation request message includes resource reservation
information and access information, such as the IP address of the
resources node in the CN that is servicing the mobile station. Sen
col. 5, ll. 12-20.
7. The resource’s reservation information includes information about
the quality of service provided to the mobile node. Sen col. 4, ll.
23-38.
8. When the new RNS receives this message, it forwards a message to
the CN, which includes the IP address received from the old RNS.
Sen col. 5, ll. 28-31.

ANALYSIS
Rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 13, 16 through 18, 20, 25, 27
through 30, and 32.
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that Chen and Sen teach sending a policy decision delete request
from a policy enforcement entity to a policy decision entity as recited in
independent claims 1 and 17. Independent claims 1 and 17 recite sending a
delete message from the policy enforcement entity to the policy decision
entity. The Examiner finds that Chen teaches this limitation in paragraph
0055. Further, in response to Appellant’s argument, on page 15 of the Brief,
that Chen teaches a delete message being sent from the policy decision
entity to the policy enforcement entity (i.e., the opposite direction of that
claimed); the Examiner states “[c]learly, in order for the QGS (PDP) to
know that the mobile station has moved away, the old QLS (first PEP) has to
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

8

requests/notify [sic] something to the QGS (PDP) such that the QGS (PDP)
‘instructs’ [it to delete the entry for the mobile station].” Answer 16. We
concur with the Examiner that Chen teaches that the QGS (which
corresponds to the claimed policy decision entity (PDP)) instructs the QLS
(which corresponds to the claimed policy enforcement entity (PEP)). Facts
1, 2. However, the Examiner has not cited to a teaching in either of the
references to teach or suggest that the delete message is prompted by a
request or notification from the QLS. Accordingly, the Examiner has not
shown that all of the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17 are taught or
suggested by the combination of Chen and Sen. Thus, we will not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 9, 12, 13, 16 through 18, 20, 25,
27 through 30, and 32.

Rejection of claims 10, 11, 26, and 27.
These claims depend upon one of independent claims 1 and 17. The
Examiner’s rejection of these claims relies upon the combination of Chen
and Sen to teach the limitations of independent claims 1 and 17. The
Examiner has not shown that the teaching of Sitaraman cures the
deficiencies in the rejection of claims 1 and 17. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11, 26, and 27 for the reasons
discussed with respect to claims 1 and 17.

Rejection of claims 5 through 8, 15, 21 through 24, 31, 33, 37 through
42, 45, 46, 48, and 49.
First issue.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Chen and Sen teaches a method for use in
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

9

a mobile system during a handover from one policy enforcement entity to
another as recited in claim 5. The preamble of claim 5 recites that the
method is used during handover. Appellant’s Specification discusses
“handoff” as being the process where the mobile node transfers from one
policy enforcement entity to another. Spec. para. 0023. Appellant argues
that Chen’s system deals with roaming which involves “the extending of
connectivity service in a location that is different from a home location
where a service was registered.” Brief 13. We are not persuaded, as
Appellant’s characterization of roaming is inconsistent with the use of the
term in Chen. Chen teaches a system where the QLN is the policy
enforcement entity. Fact 2. Chen refers to the mobile station as “roaming”
when mobile station moves from one QLN to another. Fact 3. Chen equates
a mobile station moving as roaming “the mobile station moves (i.e., begins
to roam).” Chen para. 0056. Thus, while Chen uses the term “roam,” the
action referred to as roaming is the same as Appellant’s claimed handoff.
Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of references teaches a
method for use in during a handover.

Second issue.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that Chen teaches deleting the policy session state locally in a
policy enforcement entity as recited in claim 5. Appellant’s arguments focus
on the Examiner using the same rationale to reject both claim 5 and claim 1.
Brief 22. As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that
the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1; however, claim 5 differs from claim
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

10

1 in that claim 5 recites that the deletion occurs locally, at the policy
enforcement entity. The Examiner, in rejecting claim 5, finds that Chen
teaches that the policy session information is deleted locally as instructed by
the QGS. Answer 6. We concur with the Examiner’s findings that Chen
teaches that the quality of service profiles are deleted as the mobile station
moves from domain to domain. Fact 4. As discussed, infra, this
information meets the claimed policy session information. Thus, Appellant
has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that Chen teaches
deleting the policy session state locally.

Third issue.
Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred
in finding that the combination of Chen and Sen teaches a method of
transferring context information between policy enforcement entities and
sending an update request from a new policy enforcement entity as recited in
claim 5. Claim 5 recites transferring context information related to the
mobile node to the second policy enforcement entity, and that the context
information comprises an old policy session identifier. Additionally, claim 5
recites sending a policy session update request from the second policy
enforcement entity with the old policy session identifier. However, claim 5
does not recite any functionality associated with what the context
information or associated policy session identifier, i.e., the claim merely
recites that context information is transferred from one entity to another but
the claim does not recite how the entities use the context information for
policy management. Thus, we consider the description of what type of
information is transferred to be nothing more than non-functional descriptive
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

11

material. As such, describing the information as “context information . . .
comprising an old policy session identifier” will not define the invention
over the prior art. See Ngai, 367 F.3d at 1338. Accordingly, Appellant’s
arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in finding that
information transferred in Chen and Sen’s inventions meets the context
information as recited in representative claim 5.
Nonetheless, even if we were to consider the type of information
transferred between the entities to be functionally related to the claimed
device, we do not find that the claim defines over the invention. Appellant’s
Specification does not provide clear definitions of “context information” or
“policy session identifier.” Appellant argues that paragraph 0009 of the
Specification describes context as a “type of event that triggers a policy
event, change in policy session, etc.” Brief 20. We do not find that the
discussion in paragraph 0009 provides a clear definition of the term; it
provides examples of what may be in context information. Claim 5 itself
further states that the context information comprises “an old policy session
identifier.” Appellant has not proffered a definition of a policy session
identifier; however, paragraph 0055 of Appellant’s Specification identifies
that it is used to identify the session which is already established between the
oAR (a PEP) and the PDP. Thus, interpreted in light of Appellant’s
Specification, the context information includes an event that triggered a
policy, and the policy session identifier is an indication of the existing
session between mobile unit, PEP, and PDP.
The Examiner has found that Chen teaches, in paragraph 0056,
transferring context information related to the mobile node. Answer 5. We
note that paragraph 0056 discusses transfer of the mobile device’s service
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

12

profile, and that paragraph 0055 discusses the profile as related to QoS
(quality of service). Facts 1, 4. The Examiner additionally finds that Sen’s
teaching of a relocation request message meets the claimed context
information. Answer 17.
We concur with the Examiner’s findings that Chen’s teaching of the
information transferred to the new policy enforcement entities QLNs
includes a negotiated QoS profile for communication with the mobile
terminal (an event that triggers a policy). Fact 7. Further, Sen teaches that
when a mobile node transitions from one radio network subsystem (RNS) to
another, a relocation request message is sent from the old RNS to the new
RNS. Fact 6. This relocation request message includes resource reservation
information (identifying quality of service) and identifies the IP address of
the processing node in the core network (CN) servicing the mobile unit (i.e.,
the IP address is related to the information identifying the current session
between mobile node, RNS, and CN) . Fact 6. Sen also teaches that the new
RNS sends a message to the CN, which includes the IP address of the
processing node in the CN. Fact 7. Thus, we find that the references teach
transferring, from one PEP to another, information identifying an event that
triggered a policy, and an identifier indication of an existing session between
mobile unit, PEP, and PDP. Further, the references teach that the new PEP
sends a message to the PDP, including the transferred identifier. Thus, while
Chen teaches that the information is transferred before the mobile node
moves to another PEP, Sen teaches that it is transferred as the mobile node
moves. In combination, we consider the transfer of policy information
occurring as the mobile node moves to be obvious, as it is nothing more than
Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

13

using a known method for its known purpose (reducing transfer delays and
use of resources). Fact 5.
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Chen and Sen teaches a
method of transferring context information between policy enforcement
entities and sending an update request from a new policy enforcement entity.
As the three issues raised by Appellant’s arguments directed to
representative claim 5 have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 through 8, 15, 21
through 24, 31, 33, 37 through 42, 45, 46, 48, and 49.

Rejection of claims 34 through 36, 43, and 44.
Appellant argues on pages 23 and 24 of the Brief that the rejection of
these claims is in error for the reasons discussed with respect to the
independent claims which they depend, claims 5 and 21, and that Sitaraman
does not cure those deficiencies. As discussed supra, Appellant’s arguments
have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of independent claim 5.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 34 through 36,
43, and 44.

CONCLUSION
Appellant has not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 through 8, 15, 21 through 24, 31, 33 through 46, 48, and 49.
However, Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4, 9 through 13, 16 through 18, 20, 25 through 30, and 32.

Appeal 2009-011081
Application 10/409,089

14

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 2, 4 through 18, and
20 through 49 is affirmed in part.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

babc

FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
P.O. BOX 80278
SAN DIEGO, CA 92138-0278