Suzann Hua et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 23, 2020

14563006 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 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.
14/563,006 12/08/2014 Suzann Hua 816396-US-NP 1091
50525 7590 01/23/2020
DUFT & BORNSEN, PC
1319 W BASELINE RD
SUITE 100A
LAFAYETTE, CO 80026
EXAMINER
HARLEY, JASON A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2468
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/23/2020 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):
docketing@db-iplaw.com
nokia.ipr@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUZANN HUA and YIGANG CAI
Appeal 2019-000018
Application 14/563,006
Technology Center 2400
Before LINZY T. McCARTNEY, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and,
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Alcatel-Lucent USA Inc.
Appeal Brief 3, filed March 30, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”).
Appeal 2019-000018
Application 14/563,006

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns providing usage authorization control
for group communications such as group voice calls, group SMS messages,
and group multimedia messages. See Specification 1:11–13, 1:22–23,
Abstract, filed December 8, 2014 (“Spec.”). Claims 1, 9, and 17 are
independent. Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a network element configured to identify a group
communication for an end user of User Equipment (UE), and to
process the group communication to retrieve a group ID from the
group communication;
the network element configured to retrieve a user profile
of the end user from a Home Subscriber Server (HSS), and to
determine from the user profile and the group ID whether the end
user is a member of a group associated with the group ID; and
the network element is configured to provide, on the
condition that the end user is a member of the group, the group
ID to the HSS and receive group usage rules for the group from
the HSS, and to allow the group communication on the condition
that the group communication is permitted by one or more of the
group usage rules.
Appeal Br. 15.

Appeal 2019-000018
Application 14/563,006

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References
1, 2, 4, 6, 9, 10,
12, 14 103(a) Yu,
2 Palanisamy3
3, 11 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy, Van Elburg4
5, 13 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy, Van Elburg, Cattan5
7, 15 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy, Lee6
8, 16, 17, 19, 20 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy, Cattan
18 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy, Cattan, Lee
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “a network element configured to identify a group
communication for an end user of User Equipment (UE), and to process the
group communication to retrieve a group ID from the group communication
[the “identify and process” limitation].” Appeal Br. 15. Claim 1 also recites
“the network element is configured to provide, on the condition that the end
user is a member of the group, the group ID to the HSS and receive group
usage rules for the group from the HSS, and to allow the group
communication on the condition that the group communication is permitted
by one or more of the group usage rules [the “provide, receive, and allow”
limitation].” Appeal Br. 15.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s combination of Yu and
Palanisamy does not teach or suggest these limitations. See Appeal Br. 7–12;

2 Yu et al. (US 2013/0148607 A1; June 13, 2013).
3 Palanisamy et al. (US 2016/0007138 A1; January 7, 2016).
4 Van Elburg et al. (US 2012/0011273 A1; January 12, 2012).
5 Cattan (US 2013/0237184 A1; September 12, 2013).
6 Lee et al. (US 2004/0242246 A1; December 2, 2004).
Appeal 2019-000018
Application 14/563,006

4
Reply Brief 1–5, filed September 28, 2018 (“Reply Br.”).7 Appellant
contends that, contrary to the Examiner’s findings, the cited parts of Yu do
not teach identifying a group communication or retrieving a group ID from
the group communication as required by the “identify and process”
limitation. See Appeal Br. 7–9. Appellant also argues that the Examiner
erroneously found that Palanisamy teaches the “provide, receive, and allow”
limitation. See Appeal. Br. 9–11.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner found that Yu teaches the
“identify and process” limitation because Yu discloses that network
elements send a paging message to all members of a group. See Non-Final
Office Action 4, mailed March 7, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”) (quoting Yu
¶¶ 86–87). Even if this paging message is “a group communication,” the
Examiner did not explain why the cited parts of Yu teach processing the
paging message to retrieve a group ID from the message as required by the
“identify and process” limitation. See Non-Final Act. 4. The Examiner also
found that Yu teaches this limitation because Yu discloses that user
equipment and communication network elements acquire a group identity,
and, if necessary, the communication network elements map a relationship
between a group identity and a terminal. See Non-Final Act. 18 (quoting Yu
¶¶ 121, 175); Examiner’s Answer 2–4, mailed August 1, 2018 (“Ans.”)
(quoting Yu ¶¶ 64, 76). But these disclosures do not show that either
element identifies the recited group communication.

7 The Reply Brief lacks page numbers. We treat the Reply Brief as if
Appellant had sequentially numbered it starting with the page containing the
“Status of Claims” section.
Appeal 2019-000018
Application 14/563,006

5
In any case, we also agree with Appellant that Palanisamy does not
teach the “provide, receive, and allow” limitation. In the Non-Final Office
Action, the Examiner found that Palanisamy teaches this limitation because
Palanisamy discloses that a HSS applies policies to determine what group
modifications are necessary when the HSS receives a particular message.
See Non-Final Act. 5, 19 (quoting Palanisamy ¶ 139). But the “provide,
receive, and allow” limitation requires that a network element provide a
group ID to the HSS and receive group usage rules for the group from the
HSS, all on the condition that an end user is a member of a group, as well as
allow the group communication if the group communication is permitted by
the group usage rule. The Examiner did not adequately explain why a HSS
applying polices in response to receiving a message teaches this limitation.
In the Answer, the Examiner found that Palanisamy teaches “the
network element is configured to provide, on the condition that the end user
is a member of the group” part of the “provide, receive, and allow”
limitation because Palanisamy teaches that a HSS retrieves subscription
information for user equipment, determines whether another component is
authorized to form groups and access requested services, and checks if the
user equipment can be authorized for the requested group-based service. See
Ans. 5–6 (quoting Palanisamy ¶ 102). The Examiner found that different
parts of Palanisamy teach providing “the group ID to the HSS and receive
group usage rules for the group from the HSS, and to allow the group
communication on the condition that the group communication is permitted
by one or more of the group usage rules” aspect of this limitation. See Ans.
6–7 (citing Palanisamy ¶¶ 203, 206, Fig. 13). The Examiner found that
Palanisamy teaches this aspect of the “provide, receive, and allow”
Appeal 2019-000018
Application 14/563,006

6
limitation because the cited portions of Palanisamy disclose that a SCS can
use group-based services by providing, among other things, group IDs to a
network layer and that a HSS is primarily responsible for grouping. See Ans.
6. The Examiner also relied on Palanisamy’s disclosure of a HSS assigning
and managing group IDs (among other acts) when modifying an existing
group of user equipment. See Ans. 7 (citing Palanisamy ¶ 113).
The Examiner did not adequately explain how these different parts of
Palanisamy teach the “provide, receive, and allow” limitation. For example,
even assuming a HSS retrieving subscription information and checking if the
user equipment can be authorized for certain group services corresponds to
“provid[ing], on the condition that the end user is a member of the group,”
the Examiner did not adequately explain why Palanisamy teaches providing
“the group ID to the HSS and receiv[ing] group usage rules for the group
from the HSS” in response to this condition as required by the “provide,
receive, and allow” limitation. Even if we were to agree that the cited
portions of Palanisamy generally teach providing a group ID to a HSS and
receiving group usage rules for the group from the HSS in some contexts,
this fact alone would not show that Palanisamy teaches the recited causal
relationship. Palanisamy’s disclosure of a HSS assigning and managing
group IDs when modifying an existing group of user equipment does not
remedy this deficiency.
For the above reasons, on this record, we do not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 and its dependent claims. Because the
Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 9 suffers from similar
deficiencies, we also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9 and
its respective dependent claims.
Appeal 2019-000018
Application 14/563,006

7
Claim 17
Claim 17 recites “the terminating network element configured to
allow the MT group communication only on the condition that group usage
rules provided by a Home Subscriber Server (HSS) indicate that the
receiving end user and the originating end user are members of a group
identified by the group ID.” Appeal Br. 21. Appellant argues that the
Examiner erroneously found that Palanisamy teaches this limitation. See
Appeal Br. 12–14; Reply Br. 5–7. According to Appellant, the cited parts of
Palanisamy do not suggest the recited group usage rules are provided by the
HSS or that MT group communication is permitted because of those rules.
See Appeal Br. 12–14; Reply Br. 5–7.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner found that Palanisamy
teaches this limitation because it discloses that a HSS applies policies to
determine what group modifications are necessary when the HSS receives a
particular message; that a SCS can use group-based services by providing,
among other things, group IDs to a network layer; and that a HSS is
primarily responsible for grouping. See Non-Final Act. 13–14; Ans. 8. The
Examiner also relied on Palanisamy’s disclosure that a SCS may determine
that a grouping operation is useful or needed and can coordinate with the
core network to create, modify, and delete device groups. See Ans. 10–11.
But the Examiner did not adequately explain why these disclosures teach the
subject matter recited in claim 17. On their face, none of these disclosures
teach allowing MT group communications only when the group usage rules
provided by the HSS indicate that particular users are members of a group
identified by the group ID. We thus do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 17 and its dependent claims.
Appeal 2019-000018
Application 14/563,006

8

CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6, 9,
10, 12, 14 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy
1, 2, 4, 6,
9, 10, 12,
14
3, 11 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy, Van Elburg 3, 11
5, 13 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy, Van Elburg, Cattan 5, 13
7, 15 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy, Lee 7, 15
8, 16, 17,
19, 20 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy, Cattan
8, 16, 17,
19, 20
18 103(a) Yu, Palanisamy, Cattan, Lee 18
Overall
Outcome
1–20

REVERSED