Ex Parte Kant

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 29, 2018

14214693 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/214,693 03/15/2014
27623 7590 10/29/2018
OHLANDT, GREELEY, RUGGIERO & PERLE, LLP
ONE LANDMARK SQUARE, 10TH FLOOR
STAMFORD, CT 06901
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
Nishi Kant
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
0012275USU/4823 5592
EXAMINER
SOLINSKY, PETER G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/29/2018 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 NISHI KANT
Appeal2018-004225
Application 14/214,693
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject claims 1-20.
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Mavenir Systems, Inc.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-004225
Application 14/214, 693
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's disclosed and claimed invention
relates generally to mobile wireless networks which includes
general packet radio service (GPRS) networks, Universal Mobile
Telecommunications Systems (UMTS) and Long Term
Evolution (L TE) systems. Standardization work has also been
done to interwork Wi-Fi radio with above-said networks.
Specifically, this disclosure relates to a method and system for
allowing operators to automatically populate a knowledge base
with protocol characteristics of each device type which will help
troubleshoot the issues in their network.
Spec. ,r 2.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed invention and reads as follows:
1. A method of operating a packet network
compnsmg:
requesting an IMEI from a mobile device as part of an
attach procedure;
determining from the IMEI if the mobile device is a new
type of mobile device by determining that the mobile device type
is not present in a knowledgebase which includes mobile device
types; and
if so, capturing all messages in the knowledgebase related
to activities of the mobile device until the mobile device
detaches.
THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3---6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Chen (US 2005/0153741 Al;
pub. Jan. 14, 2015) Kateley (US 8,364,141 Bl; issued Jan. 29, 2013),
Cardina (US 2006/0009214 Al; pub. Jan. 12, 2006), and Bennett (US
2013/0152042 Al; pub. June 13, 2013). Final Act. 2-8.
2
Appeal2018-004225
Application 14/214, 693
The Examiner rejected claims 2 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chen, Kateley, Cardina, Bennett, and Racz (US
2015/0065083 Al; pub. Mar. 5, 2015). Final Act. 8-9.
The Examiner rejected claims 7 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chen, Kateley, Cardina, Bennett, and Li (US
2015/0156093 Al; pub. June 4, 2015). Final Act. 9-10.
The Examiner rejected claims 9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chen, Kateley, Cardina, Bennett, and Liao (US
2012/0178449 Al; pub. July 12, 2012). Final Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON CHEN, KATELEY, CARDINA, AND
BENNETT
Claims 1, 3-6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20
Based on the record before us, we are not persuaded that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1, 3---6, 8, 10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable
over Chen, Kateley, Cardina, and Bennett.
Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in relying on Cardina as
teaching the limitation of "determining from the [Internal Mobile Equipment
Identity ("IMEI")] if the mobile device is a new type of mobile device by
determining that the mobile device type is not present in a knowledgebase
which includes mobile device types," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 13-18;
Reply Br. 3--4. Appellant, in particular, argues that Cardina only determines
whether an IMEI/SIM pair is within the IMEI database and that there is no
decision in Cardina that is based only on the IMEI by itself. App. Br. 16.
Appellant further asserts that the Examiner is incorrectly equating a new
3
Appeal2018-004225
Application 14/214, 693
device with a new type of device. Reply Br. 3. For example, Appellant
maintains that
the conclusion that "a new device is being utilized by the user"
does not logically suggest that the "new device" is "of a kind
appearing for the first time"; instead, the "new device" utilized
by the user may be of a type that already exists, e.g., in a
knowledgebase. Therefore, even if (i) a new device implies a
device which is not present in a knowledge base, and (ii) the IMEI
contains information which allows a service provider to know
what functionality a particular device supports, there is no logical
basis to conclude that "Cardina fully provides a determination
that the mobile device type is not present in a knowledgebase
which includes mobile device types."
Reply Br. 3 ( emphasis omitted).
We find Appellant's argument unpersuasive. Notably, Cardina
teaches an IMEI database that includes commonly used mobile station
models and features associated with each of the mobile station models.
Cardina ,r 17. Cardina describes that when a mobile station registers with
the network, the IMEI number is requested and referenced with the !MEI
database. Id. Specifically, Cardina teaches that:
using the IMEI number, system 100 may determine the
functional capabilities of MS 106 by referring to its internal table
of hardware/functional specifications for each of the various
types of known mobile communication devices.
Cardina, ,r 1 7. In other words, Cardina' s referencing the IMEI database to
determine the capabilities of the mobile station at least suggests determining
if the mobile station is a new type device by determining the type of mobile
station is not present within the database. See also Ans. 2 ("[T]he IMEI[]
contains information which allows a service provider to know what
functionality a particular device supports. Therefore a database containing
an IMEI would include mobile device types."). Cardina further describes
4
Appeal2018-004225
Application 14/214, 693
that the IMEI/SIM data is also stored in the same IMEI database and this
database may "store all instances of IMEI/SIM data transmission to maintain
a full historical view of activity by the users." Cardina, ,r 20; Ans. 2. As
such, we are not persuaded that Cardina fails to teach or suggest the
determining limitation.
With respect to claim 3, Appellant additionally argues that the
combination of Cardina and Kateley "disclose using the [ type allocation
code ("TAC")] 'to determine if the mo bile device is a new type of mo bile
device'" as required by claim 3. App. Br. 19. Similarly, Appellant contends
that the cited combination of references lack using the software version
("SV") of the IMEI to determine if the mobile device is a new type of
mobile device, as required by claim 4. App. Br. 20.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. As discussed above, Cardina
at least suggests using the IMEI to determine if a newly registered mobile
station is a new kind of mobile station. See Cardina, ,r,r 17, 20. Cardina is
not limited to using only a specific portion of the IMEL As such, Cardina at
least suggests using the entire IMEI, including the portions of IMEI such as
TAC and SV. We are, therefore, not persuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of claims 3, 4, 12, and 13.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3---6, 8,
10, 12-15, 17, 19, and 20 as unpatentable over Chen, Kateley, Cardina, and
Bennett.
5
Appeal2018-004225
Application 14/214, 693
REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS
Claims 2, 7, 9, 11, 16, and 18
Appellant does not present separate arguments for the patentability of
claims 2, 7, 9, 11, 16, and 18. Instead, Appellant relies on the argument
presented for claim 1. As discussed above, we find these arguments
unpersuasive. As such, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's rejection
of claims 2, 7, 9, 11, 16, and 18.
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 7, 9, 11,
16, and 18 as unpatentable over the cited combinations of prior art.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6