Ruth Guerra et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 17, 2019

13806071 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 17, 2019)

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.
13/806,071 12/20/2012 Ruth Guerra P31668-US1 8180
27045 7590 07/17/2019
ERICSSON INC.
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
M/S EVR 1-C-11
PLANO, TX 75024
EXAMINER
WYLLIE, CHRISTOPHER T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/17/2019 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):
amber.rodgers@ericsson.com
michelle.sanderson@ericsson.com
pam.ewing@ericsson.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RUTH GUERRA, JAN DAHL,
HANS LINDGREN, and HANS ANDERSSON
___________

Appeal 2018-0085611
Application 13/806,0712
Technology Center 2400

_________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–13, and 15–18 (all pending claims). Non-
Final Act. 2; App. Br. 1. Claims 4, 7–9, and 14 are canceled. Id. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
January 11, 2018) and Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed August 28, 2018); the
Non-Final Office Action (“Non-Final Act.,” mailed September 11, 2017);
the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 28, 2018); and the originally
filed Specification (“Spec.,” filed December 20, 2012).
2 Appellants assert Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ) is the real party-
in-interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ recited methods and systems relate to “handling time zone
information in a telecommunications system and in particular to methods
and apparatuses for transporting and using time zone information in an
Internet protocol Multimedia Subsystem (IMS) network.” Spec. 1. User
terminals initiate sessions for multimedia services and communication
services with the IMS network using the Session Initiation Protocol (“SIP”)
interacting with a number of nodes including Call Session Control Function
(“CSCF”) nodes. Id.
In general, the IMS nodes keep the time of day in whatever time zone
the systems are physically deployed. Spec. 2. For certain services it may be
desirable to take into account the time zone in which the user terminal is
physically deployed. Spec. 3. For example, where charging for services
vary depending on time of day, the user’s time zone may be preferred. Id.
Or, for example where certain services provided by the IMS network may be
scheduled by the user for certain times of day (e.g., call forwarding or call
diversion), it may be preferred to schedule those services based on the user’s
time zone. Id.
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to methods and systems that
provide “reliable handling of time zone information” in an IMS network for
service provision and for charging purposes. Id. In general, the claimed
invention provides “for transporting and using time zone information in an
IMS network.” Spec. 4.
As noted above, claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–13, and 15–18 are pending of
which claims 1, 12, 16, and 18 are independent. Claims 1, 5, and 12,
reproduced below, are illustrative.
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
3

1. A method, performed by a proxy call session control
function, P-CSCF, node for handling time zone information in an
internet protocol multimedia subsystem, IMS, network, the
method comprising:
receiving a request message related to a user equipment,
UE ;
retrieving time zone information specifying a time zone in
response to reception of said request message, wherein said time
zone information specifies a time zone associated with the UE;
storing the retrieved time zone information in a memory
unit of the P-CSCF node; and,
sending at least one message, including the time zone
information, to at least one other IMS network node, to enable
said at least one other IMS network node to support time zone
based services and/or charging associated with the UE;
wherein the UE is connected to a mobile access network
and the time zone information is retrieved from a policy control
and charging rules function, PCRF, node, which stores time zone
information received from the mobile access network to which
the UE is connected.
App. Br. 18.
5. The method according to claim 1, further comprising:
receiving updated time zone information from the PCRF
node, when the time zone information, which is stored in the
PCRF node and associated with the UE, has changed.
App. Br. 18–19.
12. A method in a home subscriber server, HSS, node for
handling time zone information in an internet protocol
multimedia subsystem, IMS, network, the method comprising:
receiving, from a serving call session control function, S-
CSCF, node, a request message related to a registration of a user
equipment, UE, in said IMS network;
requesting, from a mobile packet core network associated
with a mobile access network to which the UE is connected, time
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
4

zone information that specifies a time zone associated with the
UE,
receiving the requested information;
storing the time zone information in a memory unit of the
HSS node;
sending a response message, to the S-CSCF node,
including the time zone information, to enable the S-CSCF node,
to support time zone based services and/or charging associated
with the UE;
receiving updated time zone information from the mobile
packet core network associated with the mobile access network
to which the UE is connected, when the time zone information
has changed; and
sending the updated time zone information to the S-CSCF
node.
App. Br. 19–20.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1–3, 5, 6, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Cai et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No.
2008/0305811 A1) (“Cai”), Edge et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No.
2007/0060097 A1) (“Edge”), Lee et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No.
2008/0239095 A1) (“Lee”), and Andreassen et al. (U.S. Patent Publication
No. 2009/0207757 A1) (“Andreassen”). Non-Final Act 3–6.3

3 The Examiner includes dependent claim 6 (dependent from claim 1) in this
rejection but does not further discuss details of the rejection. Appellants do
not raise any issues with respect to the this lack of discussion and thus, based
on the record before us, we find that the Examiner’s identification of the
statutory basis for the rejection (35 U.S.C. § 103(a)) and the applied
references (Cai, Edge, Lee, and Andreassen) sufficiently established a prima
facie case of obviousness such that the burden shifts to the Appellants to
rebut the Examiner’s assertions. See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed.
Cir. 2011); see also 35 U.S.C. § 132.
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
5

The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as obvious over Cai, Edge, Lee, Andreassen, and Singh et al. (U.S. Patent
Publication No. 2012/0246326 A1) (“Singh”). Id. at 7–8.
The Examiner rejects claims 12, 13, 15, and 18 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Cai, Parameswar et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No.
2006/0003766 A1) (“Parameswar”). Id. at 8–10.
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejection for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential). Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Unless otherwise indicated, we adopt the Examiner’s
findings in the Non-Final Office Action as our own and add any additional
findings of fact appearing below for emphasis.
1. Claims 1–3, 6, and 16
The Examiner finds the steps of claim 1 (and similar functions of the
system of claim 16) are taught or suggested by the combination of Cai,
Edge, Lee, and Andreassen. Non-Final Act. 3–6. In particular, the
Examiner finds the step of receiving a request message related to a user
equipment (“UE”) is taught by Cai’s disclosure of the P-CSCF node of an
IMS system receiving a SIP Register message from a UE (i.e., a UE
requesting initiation of a session with the IMS system). Id. at 3 (citing Cai
¶ 9). The Examiner further finds Edge discloses the SIP Register message
includes location information from which the user’s (UE) time zone may be
determined. Id. at 4 (citing Edge ¶¶ 30, 67, 89 (“The SIP REGISTER may
also include location information for UE 110, the location capabilities of UE
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
6

110, and/or other information.”)). The Examiner articulates a reason the
ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Cai and Edge. Id. (“to
explicitly convey where the UE is to the core nodes of the network”). The
Examiner further finds Lee discloses that “time zone information can be
determined based on GPS coordinates” such as the geographic coordinate
information disclosed by Edge. Id. at 5 (citing Lee ¶ 39 (“Time zone
information can also be determined by GPS location.”)). The Examiner also
articulates a reason the ordinarily skilled artisan would have combined Lee
with Cai and Edge. Id. (“to provide time zone information for further
processing”). The Examiner also finds that the wherein clause of claim 1,
which specifies the time zone information is retrieved from a policy control
and charging function (“PCRF”) node, is disclosed by Andreassen. Id.
(citing Andreassen Figs. 7 and 8 (showing the PCRF node responds to a
request from the P-CSCF by sending location information regarding a UE)).
The Examiner articulates a reason the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
combined Andreassen with Cai, Edge, and Lee. Id. at 6 (“to enable proper
charging of the user”).
A significant portion of Appellants’ arguments are responsive to
earlier office actions rather than the Non-Final Action from which this
appeal is taken. Regardless, we respond to Appellants’ arguments to the
extent they identify issues relevant to the Non-Final Action.
Initially, we agree with the Examiner that many of Appellants’
arguments are attacking the references individually rather than addressing
what the proposed combination of references would have taught or
suggested to the ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of Appellants’ patent
application. Ans. 3 (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) and In
re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
7

Appellants argue, “Cai does not retrieve or store time zone
information, but merely receives access network information from which
time zone information may be derived.” App. Br. 9. We are not persuaded
the Examiner erred because, at least, as discussed above, Appellants attack
the teachings of Cai individually apart from the proposed combination.
Furthermore, nothing in the claim requires that the time zone be directly
retrieved and Appellants point to nothing in the Specification that would
narrow the interpretation of “retrieving” to require such direct retrieval
rather than retrieval by some indirect approach such as derivation from
location information as received by Cai and as suggested by Lee. Still
further, the proposed combination relies on Andreassen for disclosing such
direct retrieval of UE time zone information from a PCRF node of the IMS
network. See Non-Final Act. 5–6. Thus, Appellants’ argument is not
responsive to the Examiner’s rejection.
Appellants argue Edge fails to disclose the recited retrieving step
because the claimed retrieving must be “in response to reception of said
request” but Edge only discloses “a UE-initiated SIP REGISTER request
that includes location information for the UE” and, thus, “there is no
‘retrieving time zone information . . . in response to reception of said request
message.’” App. Br. 10. We remain unpersuaded of Examiner error. As
above, this argument improperly attacks Edge individually rather than in the
proposed combination. Edge is relied upon, in combination with Cai, to
disclose that a SIP Register message, as received by Cai, may include
location information associated with the UE. See Non-Final Act. 4.
Furthermore, the recited step of “receiving a request message related to a
[UE]” reads on receipt of a SIP Register message as disclosed in both Cai
and Edge. Thus, the step of retrieving a time zone associated with the UE in
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
8

response to the received request is met by deriving (retrieving) a time zone
associated with a UE from location information in the received SIP Register
message.
Next, Appellants argue that there is no reason to combine Edge and
Andreassen because Edge discloses that a received SIP Register message
includes location information for the UE and, thus, there would be no reason
to add an additional step of retrieval of location or time zone information
from a PCRF node as disclosed by Andreassen. App. Br. 10. We are
unpersuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner has articulated a reason for
the proposed combination (“enable proper charging of the user” (Non-Final
Act. 6)) and Appellants’ argument does not rebut that reason.
Appellants further argue, although geographic coordinates (location
information) for the UE is related to time zone for the UE, such location
information alone is insufficient to determine a time zone associated with the
UE because the current geographic coordinates of a UE may not align with a
“User Home Time Zone, which specifies a home time zone of a subscription
associated with the UE.” App. Br. 10. We remain unpersuaded of Examiner
error because the claims do not require any such alignment with a particular
time zone but instead require only that the retrieved time zone is “associated
with the UE.” See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982) (limitations
not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). In other
words, no specific association is required between the retrieved time zone
and the UE—any association will meet the claim language such as the time
zone associated with the current geographic location of the UE.
Referring to an Advisory Action mailed by the Examiner April 3,
2017—before the Non-Final Action from which this appeal was taken—
Appellants additionally argue paragraphs 6, 26, and 33 and Figure 7 of Cai
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
9

(relied upon in the Advisory Action) fail to disclose the retrieving step.
App. Br. 11. We remain unpersuaded because the citations in Cai
Appellants refer to are not relied upon in the same manner in the proposed
combination of references in the Non-Final Action in this appeal. In
particular, Cai’s paragraph 33 is not only the only cited paragraph the
Examiner relied on in rejecting claim 1 in both the now-superseded
Advisory Action and the Non-Final Action from which this appeal was
taken, but the Examiner now relies on this paragraph in a new manner not
addressed by Appellants’ argument. Compare Advisory Act. 2 with Non-
Final Act. 4. Thus, this argument is not responsive to the Non-Final Action
presently on appeal.
Lastly, Appellants argue the combination of Edge and Lee fails to
disclose the retrieving step. App. Br. 12. Appellants argue receipt of a SIP
Register message as disclosed in Edge cannot meet the retrieving step
because the recited retrieving step must be in response to receipt of a request
from the UE as recited in the receiving step. Id. Appellants contend Lee
fails to remedy this alleged deficiency of Edge. Id. We remain unpersuaded
of Examiner error. As discussed supra, Appellants improperly attack
references individually rather than the combined disclosures as relied upon
by the Examiner. Furthermore, as discussed supra, receipt of a SIP Register
message from a UE, as disclosed by Cai, meets the receiving step.
Retrieving location information from such a SIP Register message, as
disclosed in Edge, where time zone may be derived from location
information, as disclosed by Lee, meets the retrieving step limitation. Cai is
not relied on alone in the Examiner’s rejection for disclosing the retrieving
step.
In view of the above discussion, we are not persuaded the Examiner
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
10

erred in rejecting independent claim 1. Appellants argue independent claim
16 together with claim 1 (App. Br. 12) and, for the same reasons as claim 1,
we are unpersuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 16.
Appellants do not separately argue the rejections of claims 2, 3, and 6, all of
which depend from claim 1. Thus, for the same reasons as claim 1, we are
unpersuaded of Examiner error in rejecting claims 2, 3, and 6.

2. Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 1 and further recites, “receiving updated
time zone information from the PCRF node, when the time zone
information, which is stored in the PCRF node and associated with the UE,
has changed.” Claim 5 is rejected, along with claims 1, over the
combination of Cai, Edge, Lee, and Andreassen. Non-Final Act. 6.
Specifically, the Examiner finds Andreassen’s Figures 7 and 8 disclose
receiving updated time zone information as recited.
Andreassen’s Figure 7 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
11

Andreassen’s Figure 7 is a flow diagram showing communications to initiate
a session for a UE located in its home network, in which the home network
PCRF (h-PCRF) returns UE location information to P-CSCF because the UE
is operating within its home network. See Andreassen ¶ 67 (steps “B” and
“E”). In other words, because the UE is in its home network, the home
network PCRF (h-PCRF) node returns location information in response to a
request from the P-CSCF node. See id.
Andreassen’s Figure 8 is reproduced below.
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
12

Andreassen’s Figure 8 is a flow diagram showing communications to initiate
a session for a UE located in a visited network, in which the visited network
PCRF (v-PCRF) node returns UE location information in response to a
request from the P-CSCF node. See Andreassen ¶ 68 (steps “B” and “C”).
Appellants argue Andreassen’s disclosure of Figures 7 and 8 is
inadequate to meet the additional limitation of claim 5 because the claim
requires the PCRF node—the same PCRF node from which time zone
information was retrieved in accordance with claim 1—to provide the
recited update to the UE’s time zone. App. Br. 13. Appellants contend,
“even if there is an ‘update’ when the UE changes between home and visited
networks,” Andreassen fails to meet the claim limitation. Id. According to
Appellants, Andreassen discloses two different PCRF nodes: (1) the home
PCRF (h-PCRF) that provides time zone information to the P-CSCF node
when the UE is in its home network and (2) the visited PCRF (v-PCRF)
node that provides time zone information to the P-CSCF node when the UE
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
13

accesses the IMS network through a visited network. Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Regardless of which PCRF
node returns UE location information (v-PCRF or h-PCRF), while the UE is
operable in the corresponding network (visited network or home network),
the corresponding PCRF node returns current UE location information to the
P-CSCF node. Each time a UE initiates a session to access the IMS network
(steps 1, 2, and A of Andreassen’s Figures 7 and 8), some PCRF node for the
network currently connected with the UE will return the then current UE
location information. If two sessions are initiated sequentially by a UE
connected to the same network (home or visited), the same PCRF node (h-
PCRF or v-PCRF) will return the then current UE location information to
the P-CSCF—i.e., updated UE location information if the UE has physically
moved within the same network as used in the earlier initiated session.
Appellants further argue that Andreassen fails to disclose that the
PCRF node returns updated location information when the location
information changes. App. Br. 12–13; see also Reply Br. 4. The Examiner
finds the claims do not require the time zone information (e.g., derived from
updated location information) be updated immediately upon a change of
location of the UE but, instead, encompasses intervening events before the
updated time zone information is sent to the P-CSCF. Ans. 8. The
Examiner finds Andreassen’s disclosure of requesting location information
(e.g., in response to a request to initiate a session by the UE) is such an
intervening event. Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the
Examiner that the claim does not require updated time zone information be
generated/transmitted at the precise moment the UE time zone has changed
(e.g., when the UE has physically moved). Instead, the limitation of
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
14

receiving updated time zone information (derived from location information)
from the PCRF “when the time zone information . . . has changed” is met
when updated information (rather than, for example, outdated information)
is received following a request for location information in response to a UE
initiating a new session. See Ans. 8.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
dependent claim 5.
3. Claims 12, 13, 15, and 18
Independent claims 12 and 18 include recitations similar to those of
claims 1 and 5. Claims 13 and 15 depend from claim 12. In particular,
similar to claim 5, claim 12 includes, “receiving updated time zone
information from the mobile packet core network associated with the mobile
access network to which the UE is connected, when the time zone
information has changed.” Claim 18 includes a similar recitation.
The Examiner rejects claims 12, 13, 15, and 18 as obvious over Cai,
Parameswar, and Andreassen. Non-Final Act. 8–10. The Examiner finds
Parameswar “discloses an HLR querying a VLR for a mobile stations time
zone information wherein the VLR returns the requested information and
receiving updated time zone information from the mobile packet core
network associated with the mobile access network to which the UE is
connected.” Non-Final Act. 9.
Appellants argue,
Even if this shows an updated time zone information—a point
Applicant does not concede—the cited portion only shows
receipt of time zone information upon request, and is not tied to
whether there has been an update or not. By contrast, the claim
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
15

requires that the updated time zone information is received
“when the time has changed.”
App. Br. 15; see also Reply Br. 5.
The Examiner finds Parameswar discloses “updated time zone
information is received when the mobile station has changed (visited
network), but also when the mobile station initiates a service such as a
phone call.” Ans. 10 (citing Parameswar ¶ 37, Fig. 7). Similar to the
discussion regarding claim 5, the Examiner further finds the claim does not
require that updated time zone (location) information be received
immediately, as soon as the location (time zone) of the UE has changed.
Ans. 12. Instead, the claim encompasses receiving updated UE location
(time zone) information when the UE location has changed and some other
event has occurred that requests location information (such as a UE initiating
a new session). Id. at 12–13.
For essentially the same reasons as discussed supra regarding claim 5,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. We agree with the Examiner that
the claim does not require updated information must be received
immediately as soon as the UE location (time zone) has changed but, instead,
encompasses receipt of such updated information when the UE location has
changed and some other precipitating event occurs (such as a request for
location (time zone) information precipitated by a UE initiating an IMS
session).
Appellants argue independent claim 18 together with claim 12 (App.
Br. 16) and, for the same reasons as claim 12, we are unpersuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 18. Appellants do not
separately argue the rejections of claims 13 and 15—both dependent from
Appeal 2018-008561
Application 13/806,071
16

claim 12. Thus, for the same reasons as claim 12, we are unpersuaded of
Examiner error in rejecting claims 13 and 15.
4. Claims 10, 11, and 17
Claims 10 and 11 depend from claim 1 and claim 17 depends from
claim 16. The Examiner rejects claims 10, 11, and 17 over Cai, Edge, Lee,
and Andreassen as applied to claims 1 and 16 and further in view of Singh
for the additional limitations relating to specific approaches to transmission
of time zone information. See Non-Final Act. 7–8.
Appellants argue Singh fails to cure alleged deficiencies in the
rejections of underlying independent claims 1 and 16 and, otherwise, do not
argue the rejection of claims 10, 11, and 17 apart from arguments relating to
underlying independent claims 1 and 16. App. Br. 16.
For the same reasons discussed supra regarding the rejection of claims
1 and 16, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 10,
11, and 17.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–13,
and 15–18 as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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