Ex Parte ZhuDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 19, 201311599038 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 19, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/599,038 11/14/2006 Dongming Zhu 4202-06400 2329 97698 7590 09/20/2013 Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd. c/o Conley Rose, P.C. 5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500 Plano, TX 75024 EXAMINER SABOURI, MAZDA ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2641 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/20/2013 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 PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DONGMING ZHU ____________ Appeal 2011-003656 Application 11/599,038 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and CATHERINE SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-7, 9-11, 15, 16, and 18-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates to the intelligent network service triggering technique. See generally Spec. p. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative: Appeal 2011-003656 Application 11/599,038 2 1. A method for providing a subscriber of an Internet Protocol (IP) Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) with an intelligent service, wherein, the IMS comprises an IP Multimedia Service Switching Function (IM-SSF) entity supporting an intelligent control protocol other than a Customized Application for Mobile network Enhanced Logic (CAMEL) Application Part (CAP) protocol, the method comprises: selecting, by the IM-SSF, an intelligent control protocol upon receiving a session establish request related to the subscriber; triggering, by the IM-SSF the intelligent service to a Service Control Function (SCF) entity of a corresponding intelligent platform through the selected intelligent control protocol when the selected intelligent control protocol is an intelligent control protocol other than the CAP protocol, wherein the manner for selecting an intelligent control protocol is one of the following: Manner A: selecting an intelligent control protocol according to an extended CAMEL Subscription Information (CSI) type, which is defined as dedicated to a SCF supporting the intelligent control protocol other than the CAP protocol, by performing a matching evaluation of the extended CSI type at a Detection Point (DP); Manner B: selecting an intelligent control protocol according to a service key in a standard CSI associated with a match relationship between the service key and an intelligent control protocol configured in the IM-SSF in advance; Manner C: selecting an intelligent control protocol according to a SCF address in a standard CSI associated with a match relationship between the SCF address and an intelligent control protocol configured in the IM-SSF in advance; or Manner D: selecting an intelligent control protocol according to the settings in the IM-SSF that only one protocol is supported in a period of time. THE REJECTIONS Claims 1-4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 18-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lucent Technologies White Paper, IP Appeal 2011-003656 Application 11/599,038 3 Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) Service Architecture (NPL), and Berg (US 2002/0107038 A1). See Ans. 3-10. Claim 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over NPL, Berg, and Honeisen (US 2005/0050194 A1). See Ans. 10-12. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over NPL, Berg, and Glitho (US 6,940,847 B1). See Ans. 12. ISSUES Under 35 U.S.C. § 103, has the Examiner erred by concluding that NPL and Berg collectively teach wherein the manner for selecting an intelligent control protocol [by the IM-SSF] is . . . Manner A: selecting an intelligent control protocol according to an extended CAMEL Subscription Information (CSI) type, which is defined as dedicated to a SCF supporting the intelligent control protocol other than the CAP protocol, by performing a matching evaluation of the extended CSI type at a Detection Point (DP) as recited in independent claim 1 and similarly recited in independent claim 18?1 ANALYSIS On this record, we find that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 18. The Examiner maps the NPL’s IM-SSF to the claimed IM-SSF. See Ans. 4. The Examiner finds that: NPL . . . teaches wherein the manner for selecting an intelligent protocol is selecting an intelligent control protocol according to a 1 Claim 1 alternatively recites Manners B, C, or D. The Examiner’s Answer does not address Manners B, C, or D. Appeal 2011-003656 Application 11/599,038 4 subscriber profile, which is defined as dedicated to a SCF supporting the intelligent control protocol other than the CAP protocol, by performing a matching evaluation of the subscriber profile at a Detection Point (Trigger Point) (Trigger point/TAS checks subscriber profile to see which intelligent service to provide subscriber. The IM- SSF implements the protocol for that service) (see page 6, 1st paragraph and page 6 IM-SSF). Ans. 4-5; see also Ans. 13. The Examiner contends that “[i]t is therefor[e] the examiner’s belief that NPL alone teaches the IM-SSF selecting an ICP having a dedicated SCF based on an evaluation of the service type made at a DP.” Ans. 13. We agree with Appellant that NPL does not teach IM-SSF’s selecting an ICP according to an extended CSI type, which is defined as dedicated to a SCF supporting the intelligent control protocol other than the CAP protocol, by performing a matching evaluation of the extended CSI type at a DP.2 See Br. 10-11. We agree with Appellant that NPL teaches an IM-SSF that provides the interworking of the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) message to the corresponding Customized Applications for Mobile Networks Enhanced Logic (CAMEL), ANSI-41, Intelligent Network Application Protocol (INAP) or Transaction Capabilities Application Part (TCAP) messages. See NPL, p. 6; Br. 10. This interworking allows the IP Phones supported by IP Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) to access services. See NPL, p. 6. NPL also teaches that [w]hen a call progresses to a trigger point, the [Telephony Application Server] TAS suspends call processing and checks the subscriber profile to determine if additional services should be applied to the call at this time. . . . The TAS formats a SIP IP Multimedia Service Control 2 Appellant argues additional issues. Since the discussed issue is dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional issues. Appeal 2011-003656 Application 11/599,038 5 (ISC) message and passes call control to the appropriate application server. Id. at p. 6 (emphasis added). NPL lists TAS and IMS-SSF as separate entities under the same Application Server Layer. See id. at pp. 5-6. The Examiner has not presented evidence that NPL’s TAS is a part of IM-SSF. Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that NPL and Berg collectively teach the limitations of independent claims 1 and 18. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 18, and dependent claims 2-4, 7, 9, 10, 15, 16, and 19- 24. Similarly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 5, 6, and 11, as the Examiner has not shown that the additional references cited in the rejections of those claims remedy the deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claims 1 and 18. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-7, 9-11, 15, 16, and 18-24 is reversed. REVERSED rwk Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation