Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 10595145"

See other formats


Appl. No. 10/595,145 
Amdt. Dated October 22, 2010 
Reply to Office action of July 22, 201 0 
Attorney Docket No. P18227-US1 
EUS/GJ/P/1 0-6539 

REMARKS/ARGUMENTS 

1.) Claim Amendments 

Claims 1-7 are pending in the application. Favorable reconsideration of the 
application is respectfully requested in view of the foregoing amendments and the 
following remarks. 



2.) Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) 

Claims 5-7 and 1-4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being 
unpatentable over U.S. Patent No. 6,097,798 to Albers, et al. ("Albers") in view of U.S. 
Publication No. 2004/0190689 in the name of Pelaez, et al. ("Pelaez"). Applicants 
respectfully traverse this rejection. The proposed Albers-Pelaez combination fails to 
disclose, teach, or suggest every element of the rejected claims. 

For example, Claim 1 recites: 

Method for monitoring media session flow in a telecommunication 
network comprising a media-handling node through which, sessions 
between subscribers are transported via first ports and second ports 
comprising the following steps: 

assigning an extra port to the media-handling node of an internet 
protocol multimedia subsystem domain for each new session that is 
transported through the node; 

storing in a database, identification of a first subscriber for which 
monitoring is desired; 

setting up a connection between the first subscriber and a second 
subscriber; 

assigning an extra port that is adherent to the session between the 
first and second subscriber; 

connecting the assigned extra port that is adherent to the session 
between the first and second subscriber; 

monitoring the session between the first and second subscriber via 
the connected extra port. 

The proposed Albers-Pelaez combination fails to disclose, teach, or suggest 
every element of Claim 1. For example, the proposed Albers-Pelaez combination fails 
to disclose "assigning an extra port to the media-handling node for each new session 
that is transported through the node." In addressing a related element of Claim 5, the 
Office Action cites to a portion of Albers that describes a "5ess" switch having a fixed 



Page 4 of 6 



Appl. No. 10/595,145 
Amdt. Dated October 22, 2010 
Reply to Office action of July 22, 201 0 
Attorney Docket No. P18227-US1 
EUS/GJ/P/1 0-6539 

number of presumably hardware "interface modules 51," each with a fixed number of 
interface units. Office Action, p. 4. According to Albers, the interface units in each 
interface module include an "interface unit 0" that connects the interface module to an 
"enforcement agency terminal 122" that can monitor traffic passing through the interface 
module. Albers, col. 10, II. 9-30. However, the cited portion of Albers does not indicate 
that the number of interface modules, the number of interface units, or specifically the 
number of interface units that connect to the enforcement agency terminal are 
dependent on the number of sessions transported through the 5ess switch. Instead, 
Albers indicates only that "[t]he interface modules 51 each include a number of interface 
units 0 to n." Albers, col. 10, II. 14-15. Thus, the cited portion of Albers does not 
disclose "assigning an extra port to the media-handling node for each new session that 
is transported through the node" (emphasis added) as recited by Claim 1 . 

As a result, the proposed Albers-Pelaez combination fails to disclose, teach, or 
suggest every element of Claim 1. Although of differing scope from Claim 1, Claim 5 
includes elements that are not disclosed, taught, or suggested by the cited references at 
least for analogous reasons to those discussed with respect to Claim 1 . Claims 1 and 5 
are thus allowable for at least these reasons. Applicants respectfully request 
reconsideration and allowance of Claims 1 and 5, and their respective dependent 
claims. 



Page 5 of 6 



Appl. No. 10/595,145 
Amdt. Dated October 22, 2010 
Reply to Office action of July 22, 201 0 
Attorney Docket No. P18227-US1 
EUS/GJ/P/1 0-6539 

CONCLUSION 

In view of the foregoing remarks, the Applicant believes all of the claims currently 
pending in the Application to be in a condition for allowance. The Applicant, therefore, 
respectfully requests that the Examiner withdraw all rejections and issue a Notice of 
Allowance for all pending claims. 

The Applicant requests a telephonic interview if the Examiner has any questions 
or requires any additional information that would further or expedite the prosecution of 
the Application. 



Respectfully submitted, 

/Todd A. Cason, Reg No 54,020/ 

Todd A. Cason 
Registration No. 54,020 

Date: October 22, 2010 

Ericsson Inc. 

6300 Legacy Drive, M/S EVR 1-C-11 
Piano, Texas 75024 

(972)583-8510 

todd .cason .@ericsson .com 



Page 6 of 6