Intel IP Corporation et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 2, 2020

2019002546 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2020)

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.
14/778,983 09/21/2015 Meghashree Kedalagudde 9888-91700 9334
81310 7590 10/02/2020
Kowert Hood Munyon Rankin & Goetzel (Apple)
1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy
Building 2, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
EXAMINER
MAK, PETER K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/02/2020 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MEGHASHREE KEDALAGUDDE, CHEN-HO CHIN, and
MUTHAIAH VENKATACHALAM
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 26, 28–40, 43–47, and 50. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 Appellant refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party-in-interest as Intel IP Corporation. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “Diameter/Extensible Markup Language
(XML) protocol conversion.” Spec. 1:9–10. Claim 26, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
26. A protocol converter (PC), comprising:
one or more communication interfaces to receive
Extensible Markup Language (XML) data transmitted by an
Application Function (AF) and to provide a Diameter Protocol
(DP) message for transmission to a Policy and Charging Rules
Function (PCRF), the PCRF disposed in a Diameter realm; and
conversion logic to convert the XML data into the DP
message,
wherein the PC is to operate separately from the PCRF
but within the Diameter realm in which the PCRF is disposed
and an interface of the one or more communication interfaces is
to provide the DP message for transmission to the PCRF
through a diameter routing agent (DRA) that is
communicatively coupled with the plurality of PCRFs including
the PCRF.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following references:
Name Reference Date
Brunner US 5,771,275 Jun. 23, 1998
Maeng US 2010/0284398 A1 Nov. 11, 2010
Yigang US 2010/0299451 A1 Nov. 25, 2010
McCann US 2011/0126277 A1 May 26, 2011
Yeung US 2011/0202635 A1 Aug. 18, 2011
Gonzalez De Langarica
(“Langarica”)
US 2013/0170386 A1 Jul. 4, 2013
Vihtari US 2013/0322448 A1 Dec. 5, 2013

Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 26 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Yeung and Vihtari. Final Act. 4–7.
Claims 28, 29, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Yeung, Vihtari, and McCann. Id. at 7–9.
Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yeung, Vihtari, McCann, and Maeng. Id. at 10.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yeung, Vihtari, and Brunner. Id. at 10–12.
Claims 34, 39, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Yeung and Yigang. Id. at 12–14.
Claims 35, 37, 38, 45, and 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Yeung, Yigang, and McCann. Id. at
15–18.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yeung, Yigang, McCann, and Langarica. Id. at 18–
19.
Claims 40 and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
the combined teachings of Yeung, Yigang, and Vihtari. Id. at 19–21.
Claim 46 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yeung, Yigang, McCann, and Vihtari. Id. at 21–22.
Claim 47 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yeung, Yigang, McCann, Vihtari, and Maeng. Id. at
22–23.
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

4
OPINION
Obviousness of Claims 26 and 32 over Yeung and Vihtari
The Examiner finds Yeung and Vihtari teach or suggest all of the
limitations of claim 26. Final Act. 4–6; see also Ans. 4–6, Drawing Fig. 8.
The Examiner finds Yeung teaches or suggests most limitations of claim 26.
See Final Act. 4–5; see also Yeung, Fig. 2. The Examiner finds Vihtari
teaches or suggests “an interface of the one or more communication
interfaces is to provide the DP message for transmission to the PCRF
through a diameter routing agent (DRA) that is communicatively coupled
with the plurality of PCRFs including the PCRF” as recited in claim 26.
Final Act. 5; see also Vihtari, Fig. 1. The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
combine [] Yeung’s teachings of using Diameter format to
allow easier changing of dynamic policing and charging rules
for a user’s interaction with an application and Vihtari’s
teaching of using spoofed message to enable backward
compatib[ility].
Final Act. 6.
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
As can be seen from Figure 2 of Yeung, the API 40 is part of
the PCRF 26. And, from Figure 1 of Vihtari, the DRA 142 is
coupled with multiple PCRBs 144, 146. Combining these
teachings of Yeung and Vihtari would not result in a PC as
recited in claim 26. Rather, the combination would result in
each of the PCRBs 144, 146 of Vihtari being configured with
an API 40 of Yeung.
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

5
Appeal Br. 8; see also Reply Br. 2 (“[E]xtracting Yeung’s API 40 from the
PCRF 26 and placing it in a distinct device that resides somewhere between
[] Vihtari’s AF 160 and DRA 142, is simply not taught or
suggested by the art.”).
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s findings.
We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Figure 2 of Yeung depicts API 40 as a part of PCRF 26. Yeung, Fig.
2. Thus, on its face, Yeung does not describe “an interface . . . to provide the
DP message for transmission to the PCRF through a diameter routing agent
(DRA) that is communicatively coupled with the plurality of PCRFs
including the PCRF” (claim 26 (emphasis added)) as recited in claim 26.
However, Figure 1 of Vihtari depicts a diameter routing agent (DRA).
Vihtari, Fig. 1.
We determine a skilled artisan, in light of Vihtari’s teaching of a
diameter routing agent (DRA), would have had reason to modify Yeung’s
teachings to utilize a diameter routing agent (DRA) and, thereby, allow API
40 (protocol converter) to operate separately from a plurality of PCRFs. See
Yeung Fig. 2, Vihtari Fig. 1. We do not agree that the combination would
result in an API at each PCRF. See Appeal Br. 8, Reply Br. 2.
The Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the references that
is rational with sufficient underpinnings to justify a legal conclusion of
obviousness. See Final Act. 6 (“to enable backward compatib[ility]”).
When a work is available in one field of endeavor, design
incentives and other market forces can prompt variations of it,
either in the same field or a different one. If a person of
ordinary skill can implement a predictable variation, § 103
likely bars its patentability. For the same reason, if a technique
has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

6
skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar
devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless
its actual application is beyond his or her skill. Sakraida [v. Ag
Pro, Inc., 425 U.S. 273 (1976)] and Anderson’s-Black Rock[,
Inc. v. Pavement Salvage Co., 396 U.S. 57 (1969)] are
illustrative—a court must ask whether the improvement is more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions.
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Vihtari’s diameter routing agent (DRA) is readily-applicable to
Yeung’s PCRF because Yeung’s API 40 includes diameter client 48. In
short, modifying Yeung’s teachings to utilize a diameter routing agent
(DRA) and, thereby, allow API 40 (protocol converter) to operate separately
from a plurality of PCRFs would have been a predictable use of prior art
elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement.
See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
Because Appellant has not demonstrated that the Examiner’s
proffered combination would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult
for one of ordinary skill in the art,” we agree with the Examiner that the
proposed modification would have been within the purview of the ordinarily
skilled artisan. See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d
1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 32, which is not separately argued
with particularity.
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

7
Obviousness of Claims 28, 29, and 33 over Yeung, Vihtari, and McCann
Claim 28 further recites
wherein the XML data includes an Attribute Value Pair (AVP)
element, and the AVP element includes an AVP-Parameters
element including a first XML element representative of an
AVP code, a second XML element representative of an AVP
flag, and a third XML element representative of an AVP length.
The Examiner finds Yeung and McCann teach the further recited
subject matter in claim 28. Final Act. 7–8 (citing Yeung ¶ 27, McCann
¶ 92); see also Ans. 7.
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
The Action relies on paragraph 92 of McCann for the above-
quoted recitations of claim 28. However, this paragraph only
describes that “Diameter information may include . . . an AVP
parameter, an AVP code, an AVP flag, an AVP length . . .”
This is with respect to the Diameter message. There is no
teaching that the XML data includes an AVP parameter, much
less is there a teaching that XML data includes an AVP
parameter with the elements specifically recited in claim 28.
Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s findings.
We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Yeung discloses “API 40 provides support for Diameter in XML
template format . . . XML messages may be modified at step 64 above by
adding or modifying AVPs.” Yeung ¶ 27. Thus, Yeung teaches “wherein the
XML data includes an Attribute Value Pair (AVP) element,” as recited in
claim 28. McCann discloses “an AVP parameter, an AVP code, an AVP
flag, an AVP length.” McCann ¶ 92. We recognize that McCann is
describing a Diameter message. However, the Examiner does not rely on
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

8
McCann alone for teaching the subject matter of claim 28; the Examiner
relies on the combined teachings of Yeung and McCann.
We determine a skilled artisan, in light of McCann’s teaching of an
AVP parameter, an AVP code, an AVP flag, and an AVP length, would have
had reason to modify Yeung’s XML data to include an AVP parameters
element, including an AVP code element, an AVP flag element, and an AVP
length element. See Yeung ¶ 27, McCann ¶ 92. The Examiner has articulated
a reason to combine the references that is rational and sufficient to support
the combination. See Final Act. 8 (“to enforce security policies and rules to
mitigate denial of service (DoS) attacks or other security issues”). In short,
we determine the arrangement of XML elements recited in claim 28 would
have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 29 and 33, which are not
separately argued with particularity.
Obviousness of Claim 30 over Yeung, Vihtari, McCann, and Maeng
Claim 30 further recites “wherein the AVP-Parameters element is
included in the AVP element by a reference attribute in the XML schema.”
The Examiner finds Maeng teaches the further recited subject matter in
claim 30. Final Act. 10 (citing Maeng ¶ 92); see also Ans. 7–8 (“Maeng is
brought in to remedy the deficiency of Yeung and McCann to teach the AVP
parameters element by a reference attribute in the XML schema.”).
Appellant presents the following principal argument: “[The cited]
portion of Maeng provides an XML structure of a media capability
information element. While it does reference ‘AVP,’ it is not an Attribute
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

9
Value Pair - Parameters element.” Appeal Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 3
(“Without teaching an AVP parameter element, it is impossible for Maeng to
describe including one by a reference attribute.”). We are persuaded the
Examiner errs in rejecting claim 30.
Maeng discloses a MediacapabilityInfo element. See Maeng ¶ 92. We
do not see a teaching of “a reference attribute in the XML schema,” as
recited in claim 28, because the cited portion of Maeng describes an XML
document, and does not describe an XML schema, which describes the
structure of an XML document. See Maeng ¶ 92.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 30.
Obviousness of Claims 34, 39, and 43 over Yeung and Yigang
The Examiner finds Yeung and Yigang teach or suggest all of the
limitations of claim 34. Final Act. 12–13; see also Ans. 6, Drawing Fig. 11.
The Examiner finds Yeung teaches or suggests most limitations of claim 34.
Final Act. 12–13; see also Yeung Fig. 2. The Examiner finds Yigang teaches
or suggests “the computing device is configured to operate within a public
land mobile network (PLMN) and outside of the Diameter realm,” as recited
in claim 34. Final Act. 13 (citing Yigang ¶¶ 22–23). The Examiner reasons
“it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teaching of
Yeung and Yigang to enable Diameter servers to improve the effective
traffic management.” Final Act. 13.
Appellant presents the following principal argument:
Paragraphs 22 and 23 of Yigang describe a media gateway
(MGW) that “operates as an interface for bearer path transfer
between the network 2 and other networks.” Yigang, paragraph
23. The undersigned can find [no] discussion that the MGW
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

10
operates within a PLMN but outside of a Diameter realm in
which the PCRF operates. Furthermore, even if Yigang
provided such a teaching, there is still no teaching or suggestion
that a disposition of the MGW of Yigang instructs a similar
disposition of the API of Yeung. In fact, as discussed above,
there is no teaching or suggestion that the API of Yeung is even
to be disposed separately from the PCRF itself. Providing a
teaching of a completely different device, associated with
completely different functions, being disposed separately from
a PCRF is simply irrelevant.
Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 2 (“It appears that the Examiner
is simply providing one device that is disposed outside of a particular
Diameter realm.”).
We are not persuaded of reversible error in the Examiner’s findings.
We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Figure 2 of Yeung depicts API 40 as a part of PCRF 26. Yeung,
Fig. 2. Thus, on its face, Yeung does not describe “the computing device is
configured to operate within a public land mobile network (PLMN) and
outside of the Diameter realm” (claim 34 (emphasis added)), as recited in
claim 34.
However, Figure 1 of Yigang depicts “the servers of the cluster 30
implement services related to telecommunications, and thus provides various
hardware and/or software network elements including . . . media gateway
(MGW).” Yigang ¶ 21. Yigang discloses “[t]he MGW operates as an
interface for bearer path transfer between the network 2 and other networks
(e.g., PSTN, not shown), and provides resources for translation and
encoding, transcoding, compression, packetizing, depacketizing, etc. with
respect to bearer path traffic.” Yigang ¶ 23 (emphasis added). Appellant
does not direct our attention to nor do we ascertain a definition in the
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

11
Specification or elsewhere of the term “realm,” as recited by the disputed
limitation. In the absence of any special meaning attributable to the term,
we find Yigang’s Figure 1 further depicts server cluster 30 (realm) operating
outside of a realm where clients 11–14 reside. See Yigang, Fig. 1; see also In
re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (during
examination of a patent application, pending claims are given their broadest
reasonable construction consistent with the specification).
The Examiner has articulated a reason to combine the references that
is rational. See Final Act. 6 (“to enable Diameter servers to improve the
effective traffic management”). In short, we determine the arrangement of
the computing device (protocol converter) operating within a public land
mobile network (PLMN) and outside of the Diameter realm would have
been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 417. We
determine a skilled artisan, in light of Yigang’s teaching of a Diameter
server cluster 30 implementing the media gateway (MGW) which provides
translation (conversion) and operates outside of the Diameter realm where
the Diameter clients 11–14 reside (see Yigang, Fig.1), would have had
reason to modify Yeung to configure the computing device (protocol
converter) “to operate within a public land mobile network (PLMN) and
outside of the Diameter realm,” as recited in claim 34.
Furthermore, we note in passing and without reliance in arriving at
our decision, making elements of a device (Yeung’s PCRF 26 including
API 40) separable, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, has been held
to be an obvious design choice and does not render an invention patentable.
Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

12
See In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA 1965); In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d
522, 523 (CCPA 1961); MPEP § 2144.04(V)(C).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 34. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 39 and 43, which are not
separately argued with particularity.
The Remaining Rejections
Appellant does not present arguments for the remaining grounds of
rejection. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Yeung, Vihtari, and Brunner; the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 35, 37, 38, 45, and 50 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Yeung, Yigang, and McCann; the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 36 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yeung,
Yigang, McCann, and Langarica; the Examiner’s rejection of claims 40 and
44 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yeung, Yigang, and Vihtari;
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 46 as obvious over the combined teachings
of Yeung, Yigang, McCann, and Vihtari; and the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 47 as obvious over the combined teachings of Yeung, Yigang,
McCann, Vihtari, and Maeng.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 26, 28–40, 43–47, and 50 is
affirmed in part.

Appeal 2019-002546
Application 14/778,983

13
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
26, 32 103 Yeung, Vihtari 26, 32
28, 29, 33 103 Yeung, Vihtari,
McCann
28, 29, 33
30 103 Yeung, Vihtari,
McCann, Maeng
30
31 103 Yeung, Vihtari,
Brunner
31
34, 39, 43 103 Yeung, Yigang 34, 39, 43
35, 37, 38,
45, 50
103 Yeung, Yigang,
McCann
35, 37, 38,
45, 50

36 103 Yeung, Yigang,
McCann,
Langarica
36
40, 44 103 Yeung, Yigang,
Vihtari
40, 44
46 103 Yeung, Yigang,
McCann, Vihtari
46
47 103 Yeung, Yigang,
McCann, Vihtari,
Maeng
47
Overall
Outcome
26, 28, 29,
31–40, 43–
47, 50
30
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART