Ex Parte Auterinen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2016

10519092 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

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.
10/519,092 02/17/2005 Otso Auterinen 39700-577N01US/NC16859US 6771
12358 7590 07/05/2016
Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
ELPENORD, CANDAL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/05/2016 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):
IPDocketingBOS @ mintz.com
IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OTSO AUTERINEN
Appeal 2015-001123
Application 10/519,092
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant is appealing the rejection of claims 17, 20, 21, 26-42, 45,
and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to a communication system in which
“information is passed between at least one resource node and at least one
managing node, said at least one managing node selecting at least one
parameter for a new traffic flow based on said information.” Abstract.
Appeal 2015-001123
Application 10/519,092
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
17. A method, comprising:
determining information at a resource node configured to
provide access to a wireless connection coupled to a user
equipment;
passing the information determined at the resource node
to a managing node to enable the managing node to select at
least one parameter for a new traffic flow based at least in part
on the information determined at the resource node; and
enforcing quality of service control, by the resource node,
the enforcing based on the selected parameter for the new traffic
flow.
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 17, 20, 21, 26—29, 31—34, 37—39, 41, and 45 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ravishankar (US
7,580,424 B2; August 25, 2009), in view of Satt (US 2004/0248583 Al;
December 9, 2004). Office Action 3.
Claims 30 and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Ravishankar, in view of Satt and further in view of
Arunachalam (US 6,631,122 Bl; October 7, 2003). Office Action 12.
Claims 42 and 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Oyama (US 2002/0068545 Al; June 6, 2002), in view of
Chen (US 2003/0009580 Al; January 9, 2003) and further in view of Satt. 1
ANALYSIS
1 Although the Office Action indicates claim 44 stands rejected as being
unpatentable over Oyama, Chen, and Satt (see Office Action 12), claim 44
was canceled by Appellant in a Request for Continued Examination filed on
July 22, 2013.
2
Appeal 2015-001123
Application 10/519,092
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner,
we refer to the Non-Final Rejection (mailed October 4, 2013), the Appeal
Brief (filed June 4, 2014), the Answer (mailed August 29, 2014), and the
Reply Brief (filed October 29, 2014) for the respective details. We have
considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in
the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We concur with the findings and
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to
Appellant’s Appeal Brief and adopt them as our own, except any findings
that we set aside in the analysis as follows.
Appellant argues Examiner error because “Satt fails to disclose or
suggest the claim 17 [limitation] ‘to enable the managing node to select at
least one parameter for a new traffic [flow].”’ Appeal Brief 16; see also
Reply Brief 5—6. Appellant contends that “Satt at best teaches receiving
quality control signals to enforce policy rules rather than selecting
parameters for a data flow.” Appeal Brief 16.
We are not persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Satt’s traffic shaper “in combination with the GGSN node shapes
the traffic flows by allocating different bandwidth and delay to each flow.”
Answer 15.2 The Examiner additionally finds, and we agree, that
2 Although the Examiner bases this finding on Satt | 63, we note that Satt |
65 is the correct citation, as 1 65 states the traffic is shaped “by allocating
different bandwidth and delay to each flow,” that corresponds to the
Examiner’s finding above. See, e.g., Office Action 4. We hold this as a
3
Appeal 2015-001123
Application 10/519,092
“[allocating delay to a traffic flow is [sic] can be equated to selecting a
parameter for new traffic flow.” Answer 15. Appellant has not persuasively
provided arguments or technical evidence to rebut the Examiner’s findings.
See, e.g., In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (attorney
arguments or conclusory statements are insufficient to rebut a prima facie
case). Here, Appellant fails to provide arguments or technical evidence to
rebut the Examiner’s finding that the claimed parameter selection
encompasses delay allocation by Satt’s traffic shaper.
Appellant further argues Examiner error because “the Examiner
selects three disparate devices from the network, such as an SGSN, a policy
processor, and a traffic shaper, to cobble together a rejection in contradiction
to the claim 17 ‘resource node.’” Appeal Brief 17; see also Reply Brief 6—7.
We are not persuaded of error. The Examiner finds support for the
combination in Satt (see Answer 16 citing Satt 178), which states that
“[p]olicy processor 300 and other elements of our solution may be
embedded within other network elements such as SGSN 318 and GGSN
310” (Satt 178) and teaches the combination of functions. Thus one skilled
in the art would be familiar with combining the functions of the SGSN,
policy processor, and traffic shaper in order to arrive at the claimed
“resource node.”* * 3 We also note that Appellant provides no evidence of new
functionality that yields unexpected results.
harmless typographical error, and further note Appellant’s Briefs cite Satt |
65 (see Appeal Brief 16 and Reply Brief 6).
3 “A person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 420, 421 (2007).
4
Appeal 2015-001123
Application 10/519,092
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 17 as well as independent claims 20, 21, 42, 45, and 46,
commensurate in scope, and claims 26-41 that depend therefrom and not
separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Brief 18—19.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17, 20, 21, 26-42, 45,
and 46.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5