Ex Parte Conte et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2016

11357130 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

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