Aruba Networks, Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 27, 2022

2020005918 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 27, 2022)

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. 15/663,109 07/28/2017 Sameer Dronamraju 90452276 9741 56436 7590 01/27/2022 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER RIVAS, SALVADOR E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2413 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/27/2022 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): chris.mania@hpe.com hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAMEER DRONAMRAJU, SEKHAR KARIMBEDU, SRINIVASAN CHANDRASEKARAN, and SREECHARAN GUDURI Appeal 2020-005918 Application 15/663,109 Technology Center 2400 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and MINN CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 In this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,” filed March 21, 2020); the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed October 10, 2019), and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed June 17, 2020); and the Specification (“Spec.,” filed July 28, 2017). Rather than repeat the Examiner’s findings and Appellant’s contentions in their entirety, we refer to these documents. Appeal 2020-005918 Application 15/663,109 2 Appellant2 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1- 20, all of the pending claims. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE According to the Specification, the claims relate to a problem of localizing performance issues affecting a user of a wireless local area network by “identifying components of a wireless local area network based on a geographical specification.” Spec. ¶¶ 7-8. As noted above, claims 1- 20 are pending. Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Appeal Br. 18 (claim 1), 19 (claim 8), 20 (claim 15) (Claims App.). Claims 2-7 depend from claim 1, claims 9-14 depend from claim 7, and claims 16-20 depend from claim 15. Id. at 18-21. Claim 1, reproduced below with bracketed labels added and a disputed limitation emphasized, is illustrative. 1. A method comprising: [(i)] establishing a connection between a client device and a wireless access point (WAP) in a wireless local area network (WLAN) comprising a plurality of WAPs; [(ii)] transmitting from the client device, a geographical specification to a range monitoring engine; [(iii)][(a)] receiving, by the client device, information related to a component of the WLAN from the range monitoring engine, [(b)] wherein the range monitoring engine identifies the component of the WLAN based on the geographical 2 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Hewlett Packard Enterprise Development LP. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2020-005918 Application 15/663,109 3 specification and a first set of geographical coordinates of the WAP acting as a reference point; and [(iv)] causing information related to the component of the WLAN to be displayed via a user interface coupled to the client device. Id. at 18 (emphases added). Each of independent claims 8 and 15 recites limitations corresponding to the disputed limitations of claim 1. Id. at 19- 20. REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS The Examiner relies upon the following references: Name3 Reference Published Frew US 2008/0051068 A1 Feb. 28, 2008 Kim US 2016/0219556 A1 July 28, 2016 Da Silva US 2016/0234808 A1 Aug. 11, 2016 lnterpretAir WLAN Survey Users Guide, November 2005 (“Fluke”). The Examiner rejects: a. claims 1, 4-9, 13-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of da Silva and Fluke (Final Act. 3- 14); b. claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of da Silva, Fluke, and Frew (id. at 14-17); and c. claims 10-12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of da Silva, Fluke, and Kim (id. at 17-20). 3 All reference citations are to the first named inventor only. Appeal 2020-005918 Application 15/663,109 4 We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the contentions and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). The Examiner and Appellant focus their findings and contentions on claim 1 (see Appeal Br. 8-16; Ans. 3-9); so do we. We address the rejections below. ANALYSIS As noted above, the Examiner rejects claim 1 as obvious over the combined teachings of de Silva and Fluke. Final Act. 3-6. In particular, the Examiner finds da Silva’s disclosure of switching a device’s data connectivity from a cellular network to a wireless local area network (WLAN) based on Access Network Query Protocol (ANQP) information obtained from the WLAN teaches the limitations of claim 1’s elements (i) through (iii)(a), i.e., establishing a connection between a client device and a WLAN’s wireless access points (WAP) (element (i)), transmitting a geographical specification from the client device to a range monitoring engine (element (ii)), and the client device receiving information related to a WLAN component from the range monitoring engine (element (iii)(a)). Id. at 4-5 (citing da Silva ¶¶ 100, 138, 159; Figs. 3, 6, 11). The Examiner finds, however, de Silva fails to explicitly teach the limitations of claim 1’s elements (iii)(b) and (iv). Id. at 5. Nevertheless, the Examiner finds Fluke’s disclosure of its InterpretAir™ WLAN Survey software tool which, among other things, identifies optimal locations for new and existing access points (APs) teaches the range monitoring engine identifying a WLAN component based on a geographical specification and the geographical coordinates of the WAP Appeal 2020-005918 Application 15/663,109 5 (claim 1’s element (iii)(b)) and displaying the information via a user interface coupled to the client device (claim 1’s element (iv)). Id. at 5-6. The Examiner reasons “it would have been obvious . . . to employ the lnterpretAir WLAN Survey software tool as taught by the Fluke Networks document with the communication systems as taught by da Silva . . . for the purpose of enhancing network connectivity for devices in a WLAN.” Id. at 6. Appellant contends that, inter alia, the Examiner errs in finding da Silva’s configuration or ANQP information teaches claim 1’s element (ii) of transmitting from the client device, a geographical specification to a range monitoring engine. Appeal Br. 9-13. Appellant argues de Silva’s “‘configuration information’ . . . relates to access and operation parameters of a WLAN or WiFi component (ex: SSID number, network name, channel, MAC address, etc), and has nothing to do with geographical information.” Id. at 9-10. Appellant emphasizes that “Appellant’s disclosure explicitly differentiates between what . . . is understood as configuration information, and a geographic specification as claimed in the present application.” Id. at 10. Appellant further argues “that da Silva’s teaching regarding the exchange of ‘configuration information’ . . . is silent regarding any client device, let alone the client device transmitting the configuration information.” Id. at 11 (citing da Silva ¶ 100). Addressing da Silva’s ANQP information, Appellant argues this information is communicated to a mobile device in a network selection process and is not transmitted by the mobile device to a range monitoring engine as required by claim 1’s element (ii). Id. In support of this argument, Appellant directs attention to da Silva’s disclosure as follows: Appeal 2020-005918 Application 15/663,109 6 da Silva describes the use of ANQP information in the following context, “[t]he wireless device is anyhow camping or connected to the 3GPP RAN and may . . . retrieve the ANQP information elements . . . ” da Silva at ¶ [0085]. “Embodiments herein provide methods for delivering the ANQP information ... to the wireless device . . . ” Da Silva, ¶ [0101]. “The wireless device . . . receives ANQP information.” Da Silva, ¶ [0113]. Thus, the mobile device receives, not transmits, this ANQP information. Id. at 10-11. The Examiner responds, finding “it is well known that ANQP information may be geospatial locations (e.g.: coordinates). The examiner equates da Silva et al. configuration information to be ANQP information (e.g.: geospatial locations) with applicant’s geographic specifications concept.” Ans. 6. We are persuaded of reversible Examiner error by Appellant’s contentions. In particular, the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or reasoning to show da Silva’s disclosure of ANQP configuration information (i.e., a geographic specification) is transmitted from a client device to a range monitoring engine. Appellant’s Specification discloses that “client device 118 may transmit a geographical specification to range monitoring engine 120. As used herein, the term ‘geographical specification’ may include a second[4] set of geographical coordinates (for example, longitude and latitude) or a geographical range (for example, in meters or centimeters).” Spec. ¶ 17. 4 We interpret the designation of a “second” set of geographical coordinates as a reference to geographical coordinates included in the geographical specification transmitted by client device in contrast to a “first set of geographical coordinates” of each of the WAPs as stored in network management system 122. See Spec. ¶ 16. Appeal 2020-005918 Application 15/663,109 7 Thus, a reasonable interpretation of geographical specification includes locational information. See In re Smith Int’l, Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (internal citations omitted) (“The correct inquiry in giving a claim term its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification is . . . an interpretation that corresponds with what and how the inventor describes his invention in the specification, i.e., an interpretation that is ‘consistent with the specification.’”). Appellant acknowledges da Silva discloses that “[ANQP protocol] information elements . . . may include AP Geospatial Location/Civic Location.” Appeal Br. 10 (citing da Silva Fig. 4). However, as argued by Appellant and for those reasons (id. at 10-13), we agree the Examiner fails to show that da Silva discloses transmitting the location information by a wireless device. In particular, the Examiner fails to show and we do not ascertain that da Silva teaches transmitting from a client device (da Silva’s wireless device 120), a geographical specification (i.e., location information such as da Silva’s ANQP information including Geospatial Location/Civic Location information) to a range monitoring engine (e.g., da Silva’s Common Network Management System (NMS) 130; see Final Act. 4) as recited by claim 1. The Examiner, furthermore, does not rely on the teachings attributable to Fluke for this limitation. See Final Act. 5-6. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner errs in finding all limitations of claim 1 are taught or suggested by the combined teachings of da Silva and Fluke. Because we agree with at least one of the Appellant’s contentions of error, we do not reach the merits of Appellant’s other contentions. Appeal 2020-005918 Application 15/663,109 8 Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1, or the rejection of independent claims 8 and 15, which include language similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. Nor do we sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20, each of which stands with its respective base claim. CONCLUSION We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of a. claims 1, 4-9, 13-15, and 17-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of da Silva and Fluke; b. claims 2 and 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of da Silva, Fluke, and Frew; and c. claims 10-12 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over the combined teachings of da Silva, Fluke, and Kim. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/ Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 4-9, 13- 15, 17-20 103 Da Silva, Fluke 1, 4-9, 13-15, 17-20 2, 3 103 Da Silva, Fluke, Frew 2, 3 10-12, 16 103 Da Silva, Fluke, Kim 10-12, 16 Overall Outcome 1-20 REVERSED