Ludwig, Reiner et al.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 29, 20202019001914 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2020) Copy Citation 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. 14/346,766 05/07/2014 Reiner Ludwig 1009-0890 / P34677 US1 2266 102721 7590 05/29/2020 Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson 1255 Crescent Green Suite 200 Cary, NC 27518 EXAMINER HOUSTON, CLIFTON L ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2453 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/29/2020 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): official@mbhiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte REINER LUDWIG, FABIAN CASTRO CASTRO, SUSANA FERNANDEZ ALONSO, and PABLO MOLINERO FERNANDEZ Appeal 2019-001914 Application 14/346,766 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–37. Claims 1–15 were cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ). Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2019-001914 Application 14/346,766 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to methods and network nodes for controlling resources of a service session in a communication network. Spec. 1:7–8. Exemplary claim 16 under appeal read as follows: 16. A method for controlling resources for a service session by a policy and charging system in a communication network, the method comprising: obtaining, at a first network node, a request including service session data indicating the type of service; determining, based on the service session data obtained at said first network node, a resource type to be assigned to said service; and sending to a second network node an indication of said resource type assigned to said service, according to which resource type it is determined when a service session associated with said service is terminated, wherein said resource type indicates that resources are temporarily reserved for said service or said resource type indicates that resources are permanently reserved for said service resource type. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS Claims 16–19, 23–27, and 31–37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Willars et al. (US 2010/0217877 A1; pub. Aug. 26, 2010) (“Willars1”), Lohmar (WO 2010/072239 A1; pub. July 1, 2010) (“Lohmar”), and Choi et al. (US 2012/0250601 A1; pub. Oct. 4, 2012) (“Choi”). See Final Act. 6–13. Appeal 2019-001914 Application 14/346,766 3 Claims 20–21 and 28–29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Willars1, Lohmar, Choi, and Gulati et al. (US 7,330,425 B1; iss. Feb. 12, 2008) (“Gulati”). See Final Act. 13–14. Claims 22 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Willars1, Lohmar, Choi, and Willars et al. (US 2007/0259673 A1; pub. Nov. 8, 2007) (“Willars2”). See Final Act. 15. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions and concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as explained below. The Examiner found Willars1 discloses, inter alia, “obtaining, at a first network node, a request including service session data indicating the type of service,” as recited in claim 16, and similarly recited in claims 26, 34, and 35. See Final Act. 6 (citing Willars1 ¶¶ 54, 61, 64, 68, 139; Fig. 2); see also Ans. 6 (citing Willars1 ¶¶ 50–62, 64, 68, 139; Fig. 4). As found by the Examiner, Willars1 discloses a Policy and Charging Rules Function (“PCRF”) element that receives a request from an Application Function (“AF”) element, where the request includes enhanced service information and a request-Uniform Resource Identifier (“URI”) or request-Uniform Resource Locator (“URL”) that identifies a service. See Willars1 ¶¶ 54, 64, 68; Fig. 2. The Examiner further found Lohmar discloses, inter alia, “determining, based on the service session data obtained at said first network node, a resource type to be assigned to said service; and sending to a second network node an indication of said resource type assigned to said service,” Appeal 2019-001914 Application 14/346,766 4 as recited in claim 16, and similarly recited in claims 26, 34, and 35. See Final Act. 6 (citing Lohmar 6:25–37, 8:9–18, 17:35–38, 18:34–19:9; Fig. 5); see also Ans. 6. As further found by the Examiner, Lohmar discloses a network node that includes a bearer topology generator (“BTG”) element, where the BTG receives a request for local bearer topology (“LBT”) information from a mobile client, determines and generates the requested LBT information, and sends the LBT information to the mobile client. See Lohmar 3:20–25, 8:10–17, 17:35–39, 18:34–36; Fig. 5. The Examiner further found it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art, at the time of the claimed invention, to modify the PCRF disclosed in Willars1 to include the technique of sending an indication of the determined LBT information for a service disclosed in Lohmar. See Final Act. 7; see Ans. 6–7. As found by the Examiner, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification to allow the PCRF to make an optimal bearer selection based upon the received local bearer topology information, as disclosed in Lohmar. See Final Act. 7 (citing Lohmar 4:21–31, 19:11–19); see also Ans. 9–10. As further found by the Examiner, the aforementioned modification is also: (a) the use of a known technique (as disclosed in Lohmar) to improve a similar device (as disclosed in Willars1) in the same way; and (b) the application of a known technique (as disclosed in Lohmar) to a known device (as disclosed in Willars1) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See Ans. 8– 9 (citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420–421 (2007)). Appellant contends that the operations disclosed in Lohmar are unrelated to the PCRF and AF elements disclosed in Willars1, and that there is no reason that a person of ordinary skill in the art would consider Willars1’s handling of enhanced service information based on Lohmar’s Appeal 2019-001914 Application 14/346,766 5 description of a service request sent from a mobile client to a wireless network. See Appeal Br. 11. As argued by Appellant, the Final Office does not explain how a person of ordinary skill in the art could translate Lohmar’s teachings, regarding signaling between a mobile client and the wireless network, into Willars1’s system, which involves specific signaling between two elements of the core network. See Appeal Br. 12–13; see also Appeal Br. 14–16. We are not persuaded of Examiner error. It is well settled that “a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F. 3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a secondary reference’s features can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. As the Examiner found, Willars1 teaches or suggests an AF sending enhanced service information to a PCRF. See Ans. 6. As the Examiner further found, Lohmar teaches or suggests the functionality of determining a resource type (i.e., bearer) based on service information and sending an indication of the determined resource type. See id. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the functionality disclosed in Lohmar within the PCRF disclosed in Willars1 to achieve the benefits disclosed in Lohmar (i.e. optimal resource selection). See Ans. 6–7. Appellant further argues the Final Office Action fails to provide a plausible rationale for combining Choi’s teachings with those of Willars1 and Lohmar, and provides another reason for reversing the rejection. See Appeal 2019-001914 Application 14/346,766 6 Appeal Br. 13–14. We are not persuaded by this argument either. As the Examiner found, Choi discloses that a resource type indicator also indicates whether dedicated network resources related to a service are permanently allocated. See Final Act. 7 (citing Choi ¶¶ 74, 182, 188, 192; Table 1); see also Ans. 7–8. As the Examiner also correctly found, Choi discloses that providing this type of data allows the data to be exchanged between a communication terminal and a core network. See Final Act. 8 (citing Choi ¶¶ 138–39). Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate the type of data disclosed in Choi within the modified PCRF taught or suggested by the combination of Willars1 and Lohmar in order to achieve the benefits disclosed in Choi. See Final Act. 7; see also Ans. 8. Appellant also argues the Final Office Action has failed to make the requisite findings to support its obviousness rationale under KSR (e.g., that Willars1’s PCRF and AF devices are similar to Lohmar’s mobile client device). See Appeal Br. 16–17. This argument is not persuasive either. “The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S at 416. If a technique has been used to improve one device and a person of ordinary 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. Id. at 417. As previously described, the Examiner proposes to modify the PCRF disclosed in Willars1 to include the technique of sending an indication of the determined LBT information (i.e., local bearer information) for a service disclosed in Lohmar. See Final Act. 7; see Ans. 6–7. As Willars1 discloses, the PCRF is configured to receive bearer and network information from a Policy and Appeal 2019-001914 Application 14/346,766 7 Charging Enforcement Function (“PCEF”) element, such as an indication that a new bearer has been established. See Willars1 ¶ 61. In light of Willars1’s disclosure of the functionality of the PCRF, we conclude that the aforementioned modification is not beyond the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Thus, the Examiner’s rationale for combining the cited references is consistent with KSR and is supported by the findings. Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Willars1, Lohmar, and Choi teaches or suggests all the elements of independent claims 16, 26, 34, and 35. No separate arguments are presented for the dependent claims. See Appeal Br. 17–18. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 16–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). CONCLUSION We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16–37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 16–19, 23– 27, 31–37 103(a) Willars1, Lohmar, Choi 16–19, 23– 27, 31–37 20–21, 28– 29 103(a) Willars1, Lohmar, Choi, Gulati 20–21, 28– 29 22, 30 103(a) Willars1, Lohmar, Choi, Willars2 22, 30 Overall Outcome 16–37 Appeal 2019-001914 Application 14/346,766 8 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation