Ex Parte Banerjea

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 27, 2010

10838868 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 27, 2010)

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.
10/838,868 05/04/2004 Raja Banerjea Banerjea 11 4514
46900 7590 12/28/2010
MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 405
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
EXAMINER
TRAN, TUAN A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2618
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/28/2010 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte RAJA BANERJEA
____________________

Appeal 2009-007731
Application 10/838,8681
Technology Center 2600

____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, THOMAS S. HAHN, and MARC S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL2

1 The real party in interest is Agere Systems, Inc.
2 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or filing a request for rehearing, as
recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE” (paper
delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery mode)
shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-007731
Application 10/838,868

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1-9 and 12-20.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appellant’s invention concerns associating a wireless station with one
of a plurality of access points (APs). The station measures the downlink
signal to noise ratio (SNR) for each of the access points sending a message.
Next, the station transmits a test link request to each access point to query
each AP for link quality (e.g., SNR). Access points respond to these link test
requests with responses containing the corresponding uplink SNR. The
station associates with the AP having the highest uplink SNR, from among
those APs for whom downlink SNR is above a predetermined threshold
(Spec. 2-3, 6).
Claim 1 is exemplary of the claims on appeal:
1. A method of associating a station to one of a plurality of access points
in a wireless local area network (WLAN), the method comprising the steps
of:
(a) measuring a downlink signal quality of a message received in a
signal from each of one or more access points;
(b) transmitting a test link request to each of the one or more access
points;
(c) receiving a corresponding test link response for each of one or
more of the test link requests, the corresponding test link response including
an uplink signal quality to the corresponding access point;
(d) identifying at least one access point having a downlink signal
quality above a predetermined threshold; and
(e) associating to the access point, from among the at least one access
point identified in step (d), having the highest uplink signal quality.

3 Claims 10, 11, 21, and 22 have been cancelled.
2
Appeal 2009-007731
Application 10/838,868

The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Feder US 6,522,881 B1 Feb. 18, 2003

Claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Feder.
Claims 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Feder.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief
(“App. Br.,” filed August 20, 2008), the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed
December 17, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed October
17, 2008) for their respective details.

ISSUE
Appellant argues that Feder cannot anticipate or render obvious the
claimed invention because Feder combines a forward-link quality
measurement with a reverse-link quality measurement to obtain a single
metric, rather than identify those access points having downlink signal
quality above a threshold, then associate with the AP from among those
identified having the highest uplink signal quality, as the claims require
(App. Br. 5). For his part, the Examiner finds that Feder anticipates the
claims because the claims do not limit the steps of identifying access points
and identifying with a particular access point to be based only on downlink
signal quality and uplink signal quality, respectively (Ans. 8).
Appellant’s contentions and the Examiner’s findings present us with
the following issue:
3
Appeal 2009-007731
Application 10/838,868

Does Feder teach or suggest identifying at least one access point
having a downlink signal quality above a predetermined threshold, and
associating to the access point, from among the at least one access point
identified, having the highest uplink signal quality?

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Feder
1. Feder teaches determining if there is at least one acceptable AP
based on a communication link quality metric, where the metric may be
signal strength at the AP, signal strength at the wireless modem, or a
combination of measurements (Fig. 6, step 413; col. 6, ll. 38-46).
2. Feder further teaches “select[ing] a single AP based on the
communication link quality metric and relative AP load levels” (col. 6, ll.
40-42).

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).
4
Appeal 2009-007731
Application 10/838,868

ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, AND 20
Each of the independent claims in this application (1, 9, 12, and 20)
require identifying at least one access point (AP) having a downlink signal
quality above a predetermined threshold, and associating to the access point,
from among those identified, having the highest uplink signal quality. We
agree with Appellant’s argument, summarized supra, that Feder does not
teach or suggest these steps.
Feder teaches determining if there is at least one acceptable AP based
on a communication link quality metric, where the metric may be signal
strength at the AP, signal strength at the wireless modem, or a combination
of measurements (FF 1). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that this
teaching corresponds to the claimed step of identifying at least one AP
having downlink signal quality above a predetermined threshold. Next,
however, Feder teaches “select[ing] a single AP based on the
communication link quality metric and relative AP load levels” (FF 2;
emphasis added). In Feder’s invention, then, the same communication link
quality metric, whatever it may be, is the determining factor both for
identifying “acceptable” APs and for selecting the one AP for the wireless
modem (i.e., “station” in Appellant’s invention) to associate with. Feder
therefore does not teach determining a subset of “acceptable” APs based on
one quality metric (downlink signal quality), followed by associating with
one of the “acceptable” APs based on a second quality metric (uplink signal
quality).
Appellant’s arguments have persuaded us that Feder fails to teach all
the features of claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20. Appellant has thus
5
Appeal 2009-007731
Application 10/838,868

established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9, 12, 14,
17, 18, and 20 under §102(b) as being anticipated by Feder, and we will not
sustain the rejection.
CLAIMS 2, 4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, AND 19
Appellant’s arguments for the patentability of these claims rely solely
on the arguments made for parent claims 1, 9, and 12. Because we find
supra that Feder fails to teach all the limitations of claims 1, 9, and 12, then,
we also find that the Examiner’s conclusion of the obviousness of claims 2,
4, 5, 8, 13, 15, 16, and 19 is erroneous. We will not sustain the § 103
rejection of these claims for the same reasons expressed supra with respect
to the § 102 rejection of parent claims 1, 9, and 12.

CONCLUSION
Feder does not teach or suggest identifying at least one access point
having a downlink signal quality above a predetermined threshold, and
associating to the access point, from among the at least one access point
identified, having the highest uplink signal quality.

ORDER
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-9 and 12-20 is reversed.

6
Appeal 2009-007731
Application 10/838,868

REVERSED

ELD

MENDELSOHN, DRUCKER, & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
1500 JOHN F. KENNEDY BLVD., SUITE 405
PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102
7