Ex Parte Conte et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 11, 201611357130 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111357, 130 02/21/2006 59978 7590 02/16/2016 Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU) Attn: Jeffrey M. Weinick One Boland Drive West Orange, NJ 07052 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Alberto Conte 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. Q93202 4301 EXAMINER GENACK, MATTHEW W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2645 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/16/2016 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): patent@csglaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ALBERTO CONTE, PHILIPPE DAUCHY, CLAUDIO CASETTI, and CARLA-FABIANA CHIASSERINI Appeal2014-001772 Application 11/357, 130 Technology Center 2600 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 5-10, 13, and 15-21, and 23. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Claims 2--4 have been previously canceled, and claims 11, 12, and 14 have been objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but containing allowable subject matter if rewritten in independent format. See Ans. 18. Appeal2014-001772 Application 11/357, 130 INVENTION Appellants' invention is directed to techniques for providing admission control for the admission of a mobile terminal to a mobile network. Spec. 1: 11-15. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with labeling added: 1. A method for providing admission control for admission of a mobile terminal to a mobile network, the method compnsmg: [L 1] calculating an additional radio channel utilization based on at least one of at least one parameter that characterizes a radio channel in a wireless local access network to be used for a connection of the mobile terminal to the mobile network and at least one parameter that characterizes a traffic flow of said connection, where the additional radio channel utilization is caused by said traffic flow of said connection; [L2] calculating a radio channel utilization of said radio channel based on at least one of said at least one parameter that characterizes the radio channel; [L3] comparing sum of said calculated radio channel utilization and said calculated additional radio channel utilization with a target channel utilization; and [L4] determining whether to admit the mobile terminal to the mobile network based on said comparison, [L5] wherein said calculating the radio channel utilization comprises calculating total radio channel utilization of said radio channel in the wireless local access network, and [L6] wherein the calculating the additional radio channel utilization comprises measuring said at least one parameter that characterizes the radio channel in the wireless local network (WLAN) by an access point on the WLAN and transmitting the measured parameter to an admissions controller. 2 Appeal2014-001772 Application 11/357, 130 REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 5-8, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ishikawa (US 5,838,671; Nov. 17, 1998), Laaksonen (US 7,120,115 Bl; Oct. 10, 2006), and Witana (US 2004/0242235 Al; Dec. 2, 2004). Final Act. 2-7. 2 Claims 9, 10, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, Witana, and Ali (US 2005/0197148 Al; Sept. 8, 2005). Final Act. 7-10. Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, Witana, Ali, and Tan (US 7,460,485 B2; Dec. 2, 2008). Final Act. 11-12. Claims 17-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, Witana, and Prieto (US 6,381,228 Bl; Apr. 30, 2002). Final Act. 12-14. Ciaim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, Witana, and Kim (US 2003/0087645 Al; May 8, 2003). Final Act. 14--15. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, Witana, and Liu (US 2006/0067443 Al; Mar. 30, 2006). Final Act. 15-17. 2 The Examiner entered Appellants' proposed amendment after the final rejection to incorporate the limitations of claim 22 into claim 1, and thus the basis of the rejection of this limitation [L6] is set forth in the Final Action in the rejection of claim 22. See Advisory Act. 1-2. 3 Appeal2014-001772 Application 11/357, 130 Claim 23 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, Witana, and Aweya (US 7,221,656 Bl; May 22, 2007). Final Act. 17-18. ISSUES Appellants' contentions present us with the following issues: A) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, and Witana teaches or suggests the limitations recited in independent claim 1? B) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, Witana, Ali, and Tan teaches or suggests the limitations recited in dependent claim 13? C) Did the Examiner improperly combine the references used in the obviousness rejection of claim 23? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections and Appeiiants' contentions. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions that the Examiner's rejections of the claims are in error. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We agree with the conclusions reached by the Examiner. We note the following primarily for emphasis. Issue A: Claims 1, 5-10, and 15-21 In making the obviousness rejection of claim 1 over the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, and Witana, the Examiner makes the following findings: (1) Ishikawa teaches a call admission control method which carries out call admission control based on a determined 4 Appeal2014-001772 Application 11/357, 130 number of simultaneously connectable users at a given base station and on a measured interference level relative to an interference threshold and that there exists a relationship between the throughput (traffic) of the system and the level of interference (i.e., Ishikawa teaches calculating a radio channel utilization based on at least one parameter that characterizes the radio channel as recited in the L2 limitation); (2) Laaksonen teaches comparing the sum of radio channel utilization and calculated additional radio channel utilization with a target utilization and determining whether to admit a mobile terminal to the network based on the comparison (the L3 and L4 limitations); and (3) Witana teaches calculating an additional radio channel utilization in a WLAN as set forth in the L 1 limitation; calculating a radio channel utilization comprises calculating total radio channel utilization as set forth in the L2 and L5 limitations; and calculating the additional radio channel utilization comprises measuring at least one parameter and transmitting the measured parameter as set forth in the L6 limitation. 3 Final Act. 2--4. The Examiner further finds Laaksonen also teaches calculating radio channel utilization based on a parameter of the radio channel (L2 limitation). Ans. 19. Appellants argue Ishikawa and Laaksonen are unrelated to wireless local access networks, do not teach calculating the additional channel utilization limitation as set forth in L 1, and do not teach the L6 limitation. App. Br. 16-20. These arguments are not persuasive because, as noted above, the Examiner relies on Witana to teach these limitations. We are also not persuaded by Appellants' arguments that Laaksonen does not teach comparing the sum of the total radio channel utilization and 3 See supra note 2. 5 Appeal2014-001772 Application 11/357, 130 calculated additional radio channel utilization with a target channel utilization (App. Br. 20) and does not teach the L5 limitation (Reply Br. 2). The Examiner relies on Witana, not Laaksonen, to teach the L5 limitation. Final Act. 4. Moreover, we note that contrary to Appellants' arguments, the comparing limitation (L3) does not require the sum of the total radio channel utilization to be used in the comparison. Although the claim requires calculating the total radio channel utilization (L5), the comparing limitation (L3) does not recite that it is the total radio channel utilization that is used in the comparing. Even if we were to adopt Appellants' narrow construction, we observe Laaksonen's undisputed "comparing" teachings, combined with the undisputed teachings of Witana on calculating total radio channel utilization (L5), would teach or suggest comparing the sum of total radio channel utilization and calculated additional radio channel utilization with a target channel utilization. Additionaiiy, we disagree with Appeiiants' contentions that Witana does not teach using the characteristics of the channel in determining additional bandwidth, the requesting station and link monitor of Witana are not access points, and Witana does not suggest measured network parameters. See App. Br. 21-24; Reply Br. 3. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Witana uses QoS signaling to determine transmission rate, which teaches or suggests using a parameter (link quality) that characterizes the radio channel to calculate the additional radio channel utilization (new effective bandwidth). Ans. 20-21 (citing Witana i-fi-128, 48). We further agree with the Examiner that the link monitor is a component of the WLAN access point. Ans. 20 (citing Fig. 6 (illustrating link monitor 650 as a component ofWLAN Access Point 620)). We also agree with the Examiner 6 Appeal2014-001772 Application 11/357, 130 (and Appellants do not dispute) that Witana teaches using radio channel measurements in admission control decision. Ans. 22 (citing Witana i-f 6). In view of these cited teachings of Witana, Appellants' arguments do not persuade us the Examiner errs in finding Witana teaches or suggests the L 1 and L6 limitations. Appellants also argue that the combination of references is improper because Ishikawa's CDMA network "would not be interested in improving WLAN network" and the three techniques of the references cannot be combined. App. Br. 24--25. However, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, but what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). The Examiner explains that "isolated portions of the secondary and tertiary references, which are from art areas anaiogous to that of the primary reference, are used to modify the primary reference." Ans. 22-23. Therefore, Appellants' arguments, based on bodily incorporation of the references and unsupported by evidence, are not persuasive of Examiner error. For the reasons stated above, Appellants fail to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings that the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, and Witana teaches or suggests the limitations recited in independent claim 1. 4 4 Should there be further prosecution of this application, we observe that the L 1 limitation of claim 1 recites "calculating an additional radio channel utilization based on at least one of at least one parameter that characterizes a radio channel" and "at least one parameter that characterizes a traffic flow." Thus, the claim requires that only one of the parameters (radio channel or traffic flow) to be used in the calculation. 7 Appeal2014-001772 Application 11/357, 130 Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of: (1) claim 1; (2) independent claims 6 and 16, for which Appellants rely on the same arguments made for claim 1 (App. Br. 26); and (3) dependent claims 5, 7- 10, 15, and 17-21, which are not separately argued. Issue B: Claim 13 Appellants contend the rejection of claim 13 is improper because Tan does not teach or suggest computing expected accesses to the network using the formula set forth in claim 13. App. Br. 27-28. In particular, Appellants argue one skilled in the art would have no reason to rearrange the equation taught by Tan to determine the number of data units. Reply Br. 4. Appellants additionally argue the variable A in claim 13 cannot be construed as "the number of data accesses in a burst." Reply Br. 4. Appellants also argue that without the teachings of the present application, one of ordinary skill in the art would not have applied the teachings of Tan to the teachings of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, Witana, and Aii. App. Br. 28. We are not persuaded by these arguments. We agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to rearrange the equation taught by Tan so that the number of data units being transmitted in a burst is equal to the product of (a ratio of the product of the first time duration and second time duration to the minimum time) and (the ratio of the data rate lowest bound to the nominal MSDU size). Ans. 11, 24 (citing Tan 4:34---63). Appellants do not dispute that once rearranged, the claimed ratio is taught or suggested by Tan's equation. Moreover, Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's findings that 8 Appeal2014-001772 Application 11/357, 130 Tan's teaching of "the number of data units being transmitted in a burst (e.g., the number of times that the mobile network is accessed for the purpose of transmitting a unit of data)" meets the claimed number of data accesses in a burst (A). Ans. 11, 24. In other words, the Examiner finds, and Appellants do not persuasively rebut, that each data unit transmitted in a given burst suggests a data access. Ans. 24. A prima facie case of obviousness is established when the teachings from the prior art itself would appear to have suggested the claimed subject matter to a person of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rinehart, 531F.2d1048, 1051(CCPA1976). Nor are we persuaded the combination is based on hindsight reasoning. The Examiner presents an articulated reasoning, with rational underpinnings, to support the combination. See Ans. 12. And as noted by the Examiner, the number of references used in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. Ans. 24--25. AppeUants faii to persuade us of error in the Examiner's findings that the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, Witana, Ali, and Tan teaches or suggests the limitations recited in claim 13. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of this claim. Issue C: Claim 23 Appellants contend the rejection of claim 23 is in error because the proposed combination of the four different references is unworkable. App. Br. 29--31. Appellants' arguments regarding the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, and Witana are similar to those made with respect to claim 1 and are unpersuasive for the same reasons. See discussion supra Issue A. Appellants' arguments regarding the addition of Aweya to the combination are also based on bodily incorporation and are unsupported by any evidence 9 Appeal2014-001772 Application 11/357, 130 the combination would be inoperable. Thus, Appellants' s contentions do not persuade us the combination of Ishikawa, Laaksonen, Witana, and Aweya is improper. We, accordingly, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 23. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 5-10, 13, 15- 21, and 23. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(±). AFFIRMED 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation