Ex Parte BajkoDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 27, 201613054751 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/054,751 02/28/2011 Gabor Bajko 39700-901N01US/NC65406US 9200 12358 7590 12/29/2016 Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111 EXAMINER PANCHOLI, RINA C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/29/2016 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 GABOR BAJKO Appeal 2016-001407 Application 13/054,751 Technology Center 2400 Before BRUCE R. WINSOR, NABEEL U. KHAN, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. WINSOR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 27-44, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 1—26 are cancelled. App. Br. (Claims App’x) 21. We affirm. 1 The real party in interest identified by Appellant is Nokia Corporation. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2016-001407 Application 13/054,751 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s disclosed invention “relate[s] generally to communications technology and, more particularly, . . . to . . . enabling devices to access temporal information.” Spec. 11. Claim 27, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 27. A method comprising: sending, by a user equipment, a request for at least one of a local time information, a local date information, and a local time zone information associated with a wireless communication access point, wherein the user equipment is in a pre-authenticated state; receiving, at the user equipment, a response to the request prior to at least one of an authentication of the user equipment by the wireless communication access point and an association of the user equipment with the wireless communication access point, wherein the response includes the at least one of the local time information, the local date information, and the local time zone information; and receiving, at the user equipment, an indication from the wireless communication access point indicative of an availability of the at least one of the local time information, the local date information, and the local time zone information from the wireless communication access point prior to sending the request. Claims 27, 30, 33, 36, 38, 39, and 41—44 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)2 as being unpatentable over Sunder et al. (US 2005/0021781 Al; published Jan. 27, 2005; “Sunder”) and Bari et al. (US 2008/0032736 Al; published Feb. 7, 2008; “Bari”). See Final Act. 3—20. 2 All rejections are under the provisions of 35 U.S.C. in effect prior to the effective date of the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011. Final Act 2. 2 Appeal 2016-001407 Application 13/054,751 Claims 28, 31, 34, 37, and 40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sunder, Bari, and Kim et al. (US 2009/0010399 Al; published Jan. 8, 2009; “Kim”). See Final Act. 20-22. Claims 29, 32, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sunder, Bari, and Soulie et al. (US 2003/0058834 Al; published Mar. 27, 2003; “Soulie”). See Final Act. 22—23. Rather than repeat the arguments here, we refer to the Briefs (“App. Br.” filed May 26, 2015; “Reply Br.” filed Nov. 16, 2015) and the Specification (“Spec.” filed and amended Jan. 18, 2011) for the positions of Appellant and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.” mailed Dec. 15, 2014) and Answer (“Ans.” mailed Sept. 15, 2015) for the reasoning, findings, and conclusions of the Examiner. Only those arguments actually made by Appellant have been considered in this decision. Arguments that Appellant did not make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2014). ISSUE Based on Appellant’s arguments, we discuss the appeal by referring to claim 27. The issue presented by Appellant’s arguments is whether the Examiner errs in finding that Sunder teaches “sending, by a user equipment, a request for at least one of a local time information, a local date information, and a local time zone information associated with a wireless communication access point, wherein the user equipment is in a pre authenticated state,” as recited in claim 27. 3 Appeal 2016-001407 Application 13/054,751 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments and contentions (App. Br. 11—19; Reply Br. 2, 6—11) in light of the Examiner’s findings and conclusions (Final Act. 3—5) and further explanations (Ans. 23—26) regarding claim 27. We agree with the Examiner’s findings, conclusions, and explanations, and we adopt them as our own. The following discussion, findings, and conclusions are for emphasis. Appellant contends “Sunder’s request is indisputably for an authentication, not for local date, time, and/or time zone information.” App. Br. 16 (emphasis omitted). We disagree. Appellant correctly points out that “[a] 11 words in a claim must be considered in judging the patentability of that claim against the prior art.” In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385 (CCPA 1970). However, the interpretation of references “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test.” In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832—33 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (citing Akzo N.V. v. U.S. Inti Trade Comm’n, 808 F.2d 1471, 1479 & n.l 1 (Fed. Cir. 1986)); see also Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v. GencorIndus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (holding a prior art reference “need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims”). Sunder teaches a method for “determining the details of [an] access point prior to authenticating.” Sunder 142; see also id. 50 (“[T]he connection application 16 may invoke a method 30 ... of determining access point data associated with the access or connection point.”). Sunder further teaches that the access point data may include, inter alia, “time data” (Sunder | 50), i.e., teaches the recitation in claim 27 of “at least one of a local time information, a local date information, and a local time zone information associated with a wireless communication access point'" 4 Appeal 2016-001407 Application 13/054,751 (emphases added). Sunder explains that “in order to obtain data that may be relevant to a user of the client device 14, the client device fakes or feigns an authentication request.” Sunder 1 50; see also id. 1111 (“The authentication request may include a request identifier that identifies that the request is a faked authentication request.”), 15—17. Sunder teaches that, upon identification of a request as a faked or feigned request, “[t]he authentication server may then . . . send a reply message to the client device including data” such as “time data” or “data identifying a geographical location of the access point.” Id. 1 50; see also id. 1117-18. We agree with the Examiner that Sunder’s authentication request having an identifier that identifies it as a faked request and generated for the purpose of eliciting, inter alia, time data teaches “sending, by a user equipment, a request for at least one of a local time information, a local date information, and a local time zone information associated with a wireless communication access point, wherein the user equipment is in a pre authenticated state,” as recited in claim 27. It is of no significance that Sunder calls the request a “faked authentication request.” See Bond, 910 F.2d at 832—33. Nor is it significant that Sunder’s system may respond in the same way to an actual failed authentication request. See, e.g., App. Br. 16 (“If Sunder’s client device is a proper device, the access point responds with an authentication message, but if the client device is not a proper device (which fails the authentication), the access point may send an authentication failure message to the client device.”); see also Reply Br. 2. Turning for a moment to Appellant’s analogy (App. Br. 16, n. 3; Reply Br. 7, n. 2), if an employer were to give ice cream to any employee whose request for a salary increase was unsuccessful, a request by a hungry 5 Appeal 2016-001407 Application 13/054,751 employee for a trillion dollar raise (i.e., a fake request) would, in fact, be — or at least render obvious — a request for ice cream. Such is the case in Sunder: A faked request for authentication is, in fact, a request for access point information, including time data. We conclude the Examiner’s reading of Sunder is reasonable and accurate (contra App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 2) and the mapping of claim 27 to Sunder and Bari takes into account all of the words of the claim. Appellant does not demonstrate error in the rejection of claim 27. Accordingly, we sustain the rejections of (1) claim 27; (2) independent claims 30, 33, 36, 39, and 44, which are argued relying on the arguments made for claim 27 (App. Br. 18); (3) claims 38 and 41—43, which variously depend from claim 27, 36, and 39 and were not separately argued with particularity; and (4) claims 28, 29, 31, 32, 34, 35, 37, and 40, which variously depend from claims 27, 30, 33, 36, and 39 and were argued by contending that neither Kim nor Soulie cure the deficiencies argued for claim 27, but were not otherwise separately argued with particularity (App. Br. 18—19). DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 27-44 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.50(f), 41.52(b). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation