United States Patent and Trademark Office
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
I nihil Stall-, Patent ami Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
6300 LEGACY DRIVE
PLANO, TX 75024
CIIkNO, CHI TANG P
NOTIFICATION DATE | DELIVERY MODE
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
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
As mentioned above, the new claim amendments would require further search and
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
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.
Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2463