Ex Parte CHOI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 8, 2016

12910047 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 8, 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.
12/910,047 10/22/2010 Jong-Mu CHOI 0202-0446 7220
12/12/201668103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
BROWN, ANTHONY D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2433
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/12/2016 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JONG-MU CHOI and KEUM-YOUN KWON
Appeal 2016-001788
Application 12/910,047
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 7—10, 12, and 14—19. Claims 1—6, 11,
and 13 have been canceled. See App. Br. 8—10 (Claims App’x). We have
jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-001788
Application 12/910,047
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to simplifying a connection
process with an Access Point (AP) in a mobile terminal. Spec. 12. Claim 7,
which is representative, reads as follows:
7. A method in a mobile terminal, the method comprising:
registering, in a memory unit of the mobile terminal,
information regarding at least one Access Point (AP) to be
connected;
searching, in the mobile terminal, for only the registered
at least one AP; and
transmitting, from the mobile terminal to the searched at
least one AP, an access request message comprising information
of the mobile terminal to perform a security access to the
searched at least one AP,
wherein the security access to the searched at least one AP
is automatically performed after the at least one AP is searched
for.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Woo US 2009/0109897 A1 Apr. 30,2009
Kawamura US 2009/0270090 A1 Oct. 29,2009
Rejection
Claims 7—10, 12, and 14—19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Kawamura and Woo. Final
Act. 3-9.
2
Appeal 2016-001788
Application 12/910,047
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Kawamura
and Woo teaches or suggests
searching, in the mobile terminal, for only the registered
at least one AP; and
transmitting, from the mobile terminal to the searched at
least one AP, an access request message comprising information
of the mobile terminal to perform a security access to the
searched at least one AP,
wherein the security access to the searched at least one AP
is automatically performed after the at least one AP is searched
for,
as recited in claim 7?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2—9; Ans. 3—8. We highlight and address specific
findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Claim 7
Appellants contend the combination of Kawamura and Woo fails to
teach or suggest the disputed limitations because the cited references do not
teach or suggest “searching, in the mobile terminal, for only the registered at
least one AP.” App. Br. 4. In particular, Appellants contend Kawamura,
3
Appeal 2016-001788
Application 12/910,047
upon which the Examiner relies, “discloses scanning for any access point
(AP) to be connected with, whereas claim 7 recites searching for ‘only ’ the
registered at least one AP.” Id. (citing Kawamura H 56, 81, 139).
Appellants contend “KAWAMURA merely discloses that if there are APs
that are already registered with the terminal, the terminal searches for those
first before scanning.” Reply Br. 2.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. As found by the
Examiner (Ans. 5), Kawamura teaches that if an access point information
registering section of a mobile communication device contains information
of an access point, the mobile communication device “performs control to
search only radio channels of the access point registered by the access point
information registering section.” Kawamura 1 37; see also Kawamura
11 83, 99, 107. As such, Kawamura teaches or suggests “searching, in the
mobile terminal, for only the registered at least one AP,” as recited in claim
7.
Appellants further contend the combination of Kawamura and Woo
fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations because the cited references
do not teach or suggest “transmitting, from the mobile terminal to the
searched at least one AP, an access request message comprising information
of the mobile terminal to perform a security access to the searched at least
one AP,” as also recited in claim 7. App. Br. 5. Appellants contend:
Pages 3-4 of the Office Action indicate a correspondence
drawn between this feature and a “basic sequence” from an AP
search discussed at paragraphs [0023-24] of KAWAMURA.
The Office notes that KAWAMURA discusses a mobile
communication apparatus sends probe requests, and that APs
within a communication area of the apparatus send probe
responses. Id. However, as discussed above, the probe requests
4
Appeal 2016-001788
Application 12/910,047
are simply advertised to APs within a communication area,
which is not the same as searching for only one AP, and
therefore is also not the same as transmitting an access request to
that searched AP. (Paragraphs [0055-56] of KAWAMURA).
Moreover, a “probe request” cannot be reasonably
construed as an “access request message comprising information
of the mobile terminal to perform a security access to the
searched at least one AP. ” At most, a probe request in
KAWAMURA is a request for an acknowledgement, and is not
sufficient to teach a request to perform a security access.
(Paragraph [0056] of KAWAMURA). Furthermore, Applicants
find nothing in KAWAMURA that discloses “access request
message comprising information of the mobile terminal to
perform a security access to the searched at least one AP,” as
recited in claim [7]. KAWAMURA merely states “it is possible
to find the set access point by one scan and connect this access
point with communication terminal 100 preferentially and
automatically.”
App. Br. 5.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Woo teaches that a WPS-enabled wireless access point
receives a WPS registration message from a client device and generates a
wireless credential in response thereto. Ans. 8 (citing Woo ^fl[ 32—33). The
Examiner finds, and we agree, Woo teaches that the access point transmits
the wireless credential to the client device and that the client device uses the
wireless credential to configure itself for accessing a “legacy” wireless
access point. Id. Kawamura teaches that in the basic sequence from an AP
search to an access point connection in the mobile communication apparatus
“first, the mobile communication apparatus sends probe requests”
(Kawamura 122); “[n]ext, by returning probe responses to the mobile
communication apparatus, access points having received the probe requests
transmitted from the mobile communication apparatus, report that the
5
Appeal 2016-001788
Application 12/910,047
mobile communication apparatus is in the communication area of the access
points” (Kawamura 123); and then, after receiving the probe responses,
“[t]o start communication, the mobile communication apparatus transmits a
connection request to an access point” (Kawamura 124 (emphasis added)).
As such, we agree with the Examiner (Ans. 8) that the combination of
Kawamura and Woo teaches or suggests the disputed limitation.
Appellants further contend the combination of Kawamura and Woo
fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitations because the cited references
do not teach or suggest “wherein the security access to the searched at least
one AP is automatically performed after the at least one AP is searched for,”
as also recited in claim 7. Reply Br. 3^4. Appellants contend:
WOO’s method cannot be construed as automatic in the
context of the instant application. WOO discloses that two
different interactions must occur between the WPS-enabled AP
and the client merely to obtain the credentials. After those
interactions, the client must then send an access request message
including the security credentials to the legacy AP.
Reply Br. 3. Appellants further contend Woo fails to teach or suggest that
the security access is automatically performed, as required by claim 7,
“because, in WOO, the client must know the identity of legacy wireless AP
to which it wants to connect, obtain security credentials from a different
WPS-enabled AP, and then use those credentials to gain access through the
legacy AP.” Reply Br. 4.
We do not find Appellants’ contention persuasive. We find the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “automatically” includes
“without user intervention,” which is consistent with Appellants’
Specification. Spec. 136 (“The AP searching unit 102 searches for a
registered peripheral apparatus and connects to the peripheral apparatus
6
Appeal 2016-001788
Application 12/910,047
under control of the controller 100. That is, the AP searching unit 102 .. .
performs a security access process of automatically connecting to the
searched peripheral apparatus.”). Woo teaches “an example technique for
automatically configuring a device to interact with a ‘legacy’ wireless access
point using WPS.” Woo 126; see also Woo 128 (“WPS-enabled wireless
access point 104 attempts to discover, automatically, WPS-capable devices
that have not yet been configured. . .”). Woo further teaches that “[i]n
response to receiving, from the WPS-enabled wireless access point, the
configuration information for a selected ‘legacy’ wireless access point, the
user’s device configures itself using the configuration information, to
interact with the selected ‘legacy’ wireless access point” and that
“[thereafter, the user’s device can access a network through the selected
‘legacy’ wireless access point.” Woo 121 (emphasis added); see also Woo
133 (“client 102 configures itself. . .”). As such, Woo teaches or suggests
“wherein the security access to the searched at least one AP is automatically
performed after the at least one AP is searched for,” as recited in claim 7.
Appellants further contend the combination of Kawamura and Woo is
improper. Reply Br. 4. Appellants present this argument for the first time in
the Reply Brief. Id. As this argument is not responsive to an argument
presented for the first time in the Examiner’s Answer, and good cause has
not been shown as to why the argument was not earlier presented, the
argument will not be considered for the purposes of this appeal. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41(b)(2).
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Kawamura and Woo teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation.
7
Appeal 2016-001788
Application 12/910,047
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 7 and claims 8—10, 12, and 14—19, which are not separately argued.
See App. Br. 6.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 7—10, 12, and 14—19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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).
AFFIRMED
8