Skip to main content

Full text of "USPTO Patents Application 10595145"

See other formats


United States Patent and Trademark Office 



UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE 
I nihil Stall-, Patent ami Trademark Office 

Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS 



APPLICATION NO. 



FILING DATE 



FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 



ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 



10/595,145 05/0 

27045 7590 

ERICSSON INC. 
6300 LEGACY DRIVE 
M/SEVR 1-C-ll 
PLANO, TX 75024 



CIIkNO, CHI TANG P 



PAPER NUMBER 



NOTIFICATION DATE | DELIVERY MODE 
04/06/2011 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): 

kara.coffman @ ericsson.com 
jennifer.hardin@ericsson.com 
mcl issa. rhea@ ericsson.com 



PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) 



Application/Control Number: 1 0/595,1 45 Page 2 

Art Unit: 2463 

CONTINUATION of 3. NOTE: Claims 1 and 5 have been amended to include the new 
limitation "each extra port corresponding to a particular new session". These claim 
amendments introduce new issues and would require further search and consideration. 

CONTINUATION of 1 1 . does NOT place the application in condition for allowance 
because: 

As mentioned above, the new claim amendments would require further search and 
consideration. 

Also, Applicant argues on page 4 of the Response that the cited references do not 
teach the presently recited limitation "assigning an extra port to the media-handling 
node for each new session that is transported through the node" because "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 an 
enforcement agency terminal are dependent on the number of session transported 
through the 5ess switch" and that "one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the 
plain meaning of the claim language to require a different extra port assigned for each 
new session". 

The examiner respectfully disagrees. As Applicant's arguments above were also 
presented in its previously submitted response, the examiner's previous response 



Application/Control Number: 10/595,145 Page 3 

Art Unit: 2463 

addressing these arguments are also repeated here. In particular, as indicated 
previously by the examiner, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the particular 
limitation at issue above do not require that the number of extra ports be dependent on 
the number of sessions transported through the node or that the extra ports be distinct 
or unique for each session. In other words, there appears to be no requirement that 
there be a one-to-one relationship between the extra ports and the number of sessions. 
Thus, the rejection with respect to the limitation at issue above is maintained. 

With respect to the newly added limitation "each extra port corresponding to a particular 
new session", Applicant should be advised that further consideration (and search) would 
be required to determine whether this limitation encompasses only embodiments 
wherein there is a one-to-one relationship between the extra ports and the transported 
sessions and wherein the extra ports are unique and distinct. 
/DERRICK FERRIS/ 

Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463