Ex Parte Aho

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 29, 2008

09774308 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 29, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte OUTI AHO
____________

Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,3081
Technology Center 2600
____________

Decided: February 29, 2008
____________

Before JAMESON LEE, RICHARD TORCZON and SALLY C. MEDLEY,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLEY, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1 Application filed on 31 Jan. 2001. The real party in interest is Nokia Corp.
Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,308
A. Statement of the Case
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1-12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We
reverse.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Bhagwat US 6,721,805 B1 Apr. 13, 2004
Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
the admitted prior art in view of Bhagwat.
BACKGROUND
The invention is related to a wireless communication network method
and corresponding device 21 for transferring capability information from the
device 21 to a multimedia messaging service center (MMSC) 22. The
method includes storing the capability information of the device and placing
the capability information in the payload part of a message 24 before the
message 24 is transferred to a protocol stack. The message includes a
header part and a payload part. The method also includes processing the
message 24 containing the capability information according to a specific
protocol stack; and transmitting the message 24 from the device 21 to the
MMSC 22. The device 21 can send the message 24 to the MMSC 22 in
response to a request 23 or can do so independently without a request. (Spec.
3-8, Abs. and fig. 2).
B. Issue
The issue before us is whether Applicant has shown that the Examiner
erred in determining that claims 1-12 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over the admitted prior art in view of Bhagwat?
2
Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,308

For the reasons that follow, Applicant has sufficiently shown that the
Examiner erred in determining that claims 1-12 are unpatentable under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) over the admitted prior art in view of Bhagwat.
C. Finding of Facts (“FF”)
The record supports the following finding of facts as well as any other
findings of fact set forth in this opinion by at least a preponderance of the
evidence.
1. Applicant’s claims 1-12 are the subject of this appeal.
2. Claims 1, 7 and 12 are independent claims.
3. Claims 2-6 and 8-11 are dependent on claims 1 and 7 respectively.
4. Claims 1-12 all stand or fall together (App. Br. 6).
5. Claim 1 is representative and is as follows:2
A mobile terminal device for transferring capability
information, comprising
means for storing the capability information of the device
in the memory of the mobile terminal,
means for preparing a message for transmission
comprising processing according to a specific protocol stack,
means for transmitting the message comprising a header
part and a payload part,
wherein the mobile terminal device further comprises
means for packing the capability information into the
payload part of the message before the message is transferred to
the protocol stack and
wherein said message is transmitted without separate
request.

2 Indenting added to comply with 37 C.F.R. § 1.75(i).
3
Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,308
6. The Examiner found that the admitted prior art describes a device
including means for storing capability information of the device,
means for preparing a message for transmission comprising
processing according to a specific protocol stack and means for
transmitting the message comprising a header part and a payload part
(Final Rejection 2 and Ans. 3-4).
7. The Examiner found that the admitted prior art does not describe
means for packing the capability information into the payload part of
the message before the message is transferred to the protocol stack
wherein the message is transmitted without separate request (Final
Rejection 2 and Ans. 4).
8. The Examiner found that Bhagwat describes what is deficient in the
prior art since it describes that additional information regarding the
wireless attachment (WAT) can be provided to the wireless access
point (WAPt) in the payload, where support of power conserving
sleep modes, authentication and encryption type are representative of
the capability information, and does not require separate requests
before the WAT notifies the WAPt whether it supports power
conserving sleep modes, authentication and encryption (Final
Rejection 2, Ans. 4 and Bhagwat col. 9, l. 19-col. 10, l. 15).
9. The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to adapt
Bhagwat’s concept to the admitted prior art to allow more space for
transmitting signaling information at one time (Final Rejection 4,
Ans. 4).
10. Bhagwat describes a network system that includes a mobile host 401
connected to a wireless attachment (WAT) 411 and a wireless access
4
Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,308
point (WAPt) 412 connected with an application host 402 (col. 4, l.
59-col. 5, l. 18 and fig. 4).
11. Bhagwat also describes that WAT 411 communicates with WAPt 412
using a shared medium access (SMAC) protocol 414 (col. 5, ll. 19-21
and fig. 4).
12. Bhagwat describes that once a sufficient amount of information from
the mobile host is accumulated in the WAT buffer 513, a payload
packet 529 is formed and sent to the WAT SMAC protocol module
514 where it adds a SMAC header to the payload packet to form a
SMAC frame 530 (col. 6, ll. 1-8 and fig. 5).
13. Bhagwat describes that the WAPt has a corresponding SMAC
protocol module 515 and that the two protocol modules 514 and 515
coordinate the transmission of frames 530 between the mobile host
and the WAPt using the rules of the SMAC protocol (col. 6, ll. 9-12
and fig. 5)
14. Bhagwat also describes that a polling-based SMAC protocol can be
used where the WAPt polls each mobile host in turn allowing it to
transmit (col. 6, ll. 13-24).
15. Bhagwat describes that in a polling-based SMAC, the SMAC portions
of the protocol executed by the WAPt and WAT are asymmetric and
have distinct non-identical roles where the WAT transmits only when
instructed by the WAPt (col. 6, ll. 24-42).
16. Bhagwat describes that the advantage of the asymmetric execution of
the WAPt and WAT SMAC protocol portions is that it allows most of
the medium access intelligence to be placed in the WAPt and little
placed in the WAT which permits use of simple, low-cost and power
efficient WATs (col. 6, ll. 34-42).
5
Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,308
17. Bhagwat describes a polling based SMAC protocol frame which
includes a payload field 604 that includes information needed by the
recipient, for example a command sent by the WAPt to a WAT to go
to sleep to conserve power (col. 7, ll. 39-65 and fig. 6).
18. Bhagwat describes that in a normal situation, such as when the WAT
is already registered, a POLL frame is sent from the WAPt to a unique
WAT to check whether it has a PAYLOAD frame ready to transmit
and then a PAYLOAD frame is sent from a WAT to a WAPt
following the POLL frame (col. 8, ll. 39-67).
19. Bhagwat also describes a registration process in which a WAPt sends
an invitation POLL frame to an unregistered WAT, with the
unregistered WAT replying with an invitation PAYLOAD frame that
includes additional information fields including a payload field (col.
9, l. 56-col. 10, l. 7).
20. Bhagwat describes that additional information regarding the WAT can
be provided by the WAT in the payload field such as whether the
WAT supports power conserving sleep modes, authentication and
encryption type or version (Bhagwat col. 10, ll. 11-15).
21. Bhagwat describes that the transmissions between the WAT and
WAPt are generally under the control of the WAPt (col. 11, ll. 16-17).
D. Principles of Law
“Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between
the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the
subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention
was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject
matter pertains.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734
(2007).
6
Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,308

“Under §103, the scope and content of the prior art are to be determined;
differences between the prior art and the claims at issue are to be
ascertained; and the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art resolved.
Against this background the obviousness or nonobviousness of the subject
matter is determined.” Id.
E. Analysis
Claims 1-12 stand or fall together (FF3 4). Claim 1 is representative and
recites the limitation “wherein the mobile terminal device further comprises
means for packing the capability information into the payload part of the
message before the message is transferred to the protocol stack and wherein
said message is transmitted without separate request”. For all of the
elements prior to the first “wherein” clause, the Examiner relied on the
“admitted prior art” described in the background section of Applicants’
specification (FF 6) 4. The Examiner relied on Bhagwat for the remaining
claim elements.
Applicant argues that the Bhagwat excerpts cited by the Examiner do not
describe packing of capability information into a payload part of a message,
since Bhagwat describes that the payload part of the message contains
information relating to the common transmission medium designated as
WAT and WAPt. Applicant has failed to demonstrate error in the
Examiner’s specific finding that Bhagwat describes capability information,
such as whether power conserving sleep modes, authentication and
encryption type are supported, and providing that information in the payload

3 FF denotes Finding of Fact.
4 Claim 1 appears to be an improvement claim (e.g., a “Jepson” claim). As
such, the Examiner could have required Applicant to comply with 37 C.F.R.
1.75 (e).
7
Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,308
portion of the message (FFs 8 and 11). Applicant argues in the Reply Brief
however, that Bhagwat does not teach the transmission of a message without
a separate request (Reply Br. 2). In the Reply Brief, Applicant argues that
Bhagwat does not teach the transmission of a message without a separate
request (Reply Br. 2). Applicant argues that the Examiner ignores the
portion of the Bhagwat description cited at col. 9, l. 19-col. 10, l. 15 that
refers to the required polling procedure (Reply Br. 2). Applicant further
argues that throughout the description cited by the Examiner, Bhagwat
describes that to initiate registration, the WAT receives an invitation poll
frame and replies to it by sending an invitation payload frame (Reply Br. 2).
Applicant argues that the polling procedure is a request followed by a
response, and therefore the system of Bhagwat includes a request-response
mechanism that requires a separate request (Reply Br. 2).
The Examiner found that col. 9, l. 19-col. 10, l. 15 of Bhagwat describes
that a separate request is not required before the WAT (Wireless
Attachment) sends a message to the WAPt (Wireless Access Point) (FF 8).
Nothing in that section of Bhagwat describes the WAT transmitting to the
WAPt a message without a request (i.e. an unsolicited transmission). As we
see it, the Examiner incorrectly inferred that there is no separate request
made for the capability information based on Bhagwat’s description at
column 10, lines 13-15 that “the WAT may notify whether it supports power
conserving sleep modes, authentication and encryption type or version,
payload or header compression, etc.” Claim 1 recites “wherein said message
is transmitted without separate request”, not wherein the capability
information is transmitted without separate request. The claimed capability
information is part of the message that is transmitted. Bhagwat describes
that the WAT only sends a message (i.e. PAYLOAD frame or invitation
8
Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,308

PAYLOAD frame) to the WAPt when the WAPt sends a request (i.e. POLL
frame or invitation POLL frame) to the WAT (FFs 14-15 and 17-21).
Bhagwat further describes that the WAT replies to the WAPt with an
invitation PAYLOAD frame including a payload field which may include
whether the WAT supports power conserving sleep modes, authentication
and encryption (FFs 19-20). Thus, the capability information, if it is
included, is necessarily part of the payload field or message that is
transmitted from the WAT only after a request for such message is made by
the WAPt.
The Examiner has failed to address Applicant’s arguments raised in the
Reply Brief5 and thereby has failed to direct us to a description, suggestion,
or implication in Bhagwat that the WAT transmits a message to the WAPt
absent a request. Bhagwat appears to describe the exact opposite since
Bhagwat describes the asymmetric execution of respective WAPt and WAT
shared medium access (SMAC) protocol portions of a polling-based SMAC,
where the WAT transmits only when instructed by the WAPt. This
transmission is said to be advantageous since it allows most of the medium
access intelligence to be placed in the WAPt and little to be placed in the
WAT which permits use of simple, low-cost and power efficient WATs (FFs
15-16).
For all of these reasons, Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated that the
Examiner erred in determining that claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the admitted prior art in view of Bhagwat.

5 The Reply Brief was merely noted by the Examiner on 30 May 2006.
9
Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,308
F. Decision
Upon consideration of the record, and for the reasons given, the
Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-12 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) over the admitted prior art in view of Bhagwat is reversed.

REVERSED

10
Appeal 2007-3602
Application 09/774,308

MAT: lb

PERMAN & GREEN, LLP
425 POST ROAD
FAIRFIELD, CT 06430-6232
11