Ex Parte Beninghaus et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201612642516 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/642,516 12/18/2009 15757 7590 02/26/2016 Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP 2200 Ross A venue Suite 3600 Dallas, TX 75201-7932 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR James Beninghaus 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. QLXX.P0716US/11403358 2677 EXAMINER CHAMBERS, MICHAEL A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2448 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/26/2016 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): ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JAMES BENINGHAUS, WILLIAM NGO, WELL Y KASTEN, and NEIL HENDIN Appeal2014-002560 Application 12/642,516 Technology Center 2400 Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm. Introduction The invention is directed to techniques to manage a mobile device based on network density. Abstract. Appeal2014-002560 Application 12/642,516 _,_Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A mobile computing device, comprising: a radio module operative to receive radio signals; a resource detector operative to collect a sample for one or more wireless resources based on the received radio signals; a network density module operative to estimate a network density for an operating environment of the mobile computing device based on the sample and a probability density function; and a parameter management module operative to manage one or more operational parameters of the mobile computing device based on the estimated network density. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Potkonjak (US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0277308 Al; published November 4, 2010), Xu (US Patent Number 8,064,537 B2; issued November 22, 2011), and Atwal (US Patent Application Publication Number 2010/0150027 Al; published June 17, 2010). Answer 3-10. Claims 4, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Potkonjak, Xu, Atwal, and Perry (US Patent Number 7, 720, 779 B 1; issued May 18, 2010). Answer 10-11. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed June 10, 2013), the Reply Brief (filed November 13, 2013), the Answer (mailed September 13, 2013), and the Final Rejection (mailed December 6, 2012) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. 2 Appeal2014-002560 Application 12/642,516 1A .. ppellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding Potkonjak teaches or suggests in paragraph [ 16] a parameter management module that is operative to manage operational parameters of a mobile computing device based on estimated network density as require in claim 1. Appeal Brief 3 3; Answer 4. We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. Potkonjak discloses a list of resources that are managed by an operating system, including network bandwidth; therefore, it is evident that Potkonjak discloses managing parameters based upon network capacity. Potkonjak, paragraph [ 16]. The employment of various procedures or methods to calculate the network capacity would be well within the realm of one of ordinary skill in the art. 1 Appellants argue that Xu fails to disclose a resource detector operative to collect a sample for one or more wireless resources based upon radio signals as require in claim 1 because Xu' s sample refers to the radio signal, while the claimed sample refers to measurable characteristics of wireless resources such as RSSI (received signal strength indicator) and SNR (signal to noise ratio). Appeal Brief 34. Appellants further contend, "It is clear that the 'sample' does not refer to the radio signal itself' because the "claims are interpreted in light of the specification, the term 'sample' in claim 1 is clearly referring to a '[m]easurable characteristic of the one or more wireless resources' and not simply a representation of the received signal." Appeal 1 "As our precedents make clear, however, the analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'! v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). 3 Appeal2014-002560 Application 12/642,516 Brief 34. \Ve do not find 1A .. ppellants' argument persuasive. The language in claim 1 does not preclude the collected sample from being a radio signal, as Appellants contend. Further, although giving claims their broadest reasonable interpretation must take into account any definitions given in the specification, (In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997)), it is improper to read into the claims limitations from examples given in the specification (In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989)). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claim 1, as well as independent claims 13 and 18 argued together. See Appeal Brief 35. We further sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 5-12, 14--17, 19, and 20 not argued separately. See Appeal Brief 3 5. DECISION The Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 1-20 are 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)(l )(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 4 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation