Ex Parte Corda et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 28, 2016

12087267 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/087,267 07/29/2008 Enzo Corda
22852 7590 02/01/2016
FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW, GARRETT & DUNNER
LLP
901 NEW YORK A VENUE, NW
WASHINGTON, DC 20001-4413
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.
09952.0230 6143
EXAMINER
CHOUDHURY, AZIZUL Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/01/2016 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):
regional-desk@finnegan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ENZO CORDA, MARIA MOSCATELLI, and MARCO POLANO
Appeal2013-008121
Application 12/087 ,267
Technology Center 2400
Before STEPHEN C. SIU, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and
ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
DILLON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 35-37 and 39-59. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is directed to a method for managing an Internet
connection and informing a user about connectivity to the Internet of a user
terminal via a gateway, the gateway being connected to the user terminal via
a local area network, and to an Internet Service Provider via a broadband
line. See Abstract.
Appeal2013-008121
Application 12/087 ,267
Claim 3 5 is illustrative, with key disputed limitations emphasized:
3 5. A method for managing an internet connection and
informing a user about connectivity to the internet of a user
terminal via a gateway, said gateway being connected to said
user terminal via a first communication link, and to an internet
service provider via a second communication link, comprising:
remotely provisioning through said first communication
link to said gateway a configuration of said gateway to
configure said gateway for internet connection;
detecting completion of the configuration of said gateway
for internet connection; and
providing said user terminal with an indication of
availability of connectivity of said gateway to the internet when
configuration of said gateway for internet connection is
completed,
wherein said indication is automatically provided to said
user terminal by said gateway without receiving a request from
said user terminal.
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Sullivan
Benson
Monette
US 7,363,358 B2
US 2005/0135236 Al
US 2006/0182123 Al
2
Apr. 22, 2008
June 23, 2005
Aug. 17, 2006
Appeal2013-008121
Application 12/087 ,267
THE REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 35-37, 39-43, and 46-59 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sullivan and Benson.
Final Act. 2-10. 1
2. The Examiner rejected claims 44 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Sullivan, Benson, and Monette. Final Act.
10-12.
CONTENTIONS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions (App. Br. 7-10; Reply Br. 2-3) that the Examiner has erred. We
have also reviewed the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner ( 1) in
the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-12), and (2) the
reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in response to
Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 4---6). We highlight and amplify certain
teachings and suggestions of the references as follows.
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 35-37,
39-43, and 46-59 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sullivan
and Benson in view of the failure of the cited references to show or suggest
"providing said user terminal with an indication of availability of
connectivity of said gateway to the internet when configuration of said
gateway for internet connection is completed," as set forth in claim 35, the
only independent claim on appeal. App. Br. 8.
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Office Action ("Final Act.")
mailed April 11, 2012; the Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed December 10,
2012; the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed April 23, 2013; and, the
Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 11, 2013.
3
Appeal2013-008121
Application 12/087 ,267
Specifically, Appellants argue that the broadcast of a Service Set
Identifier (SSID) by Benson "is merely used to identify an Access Point
(AP)" and cannot be said to provide an indication that the access point is
connected to the Internet. Id. at 9.
Further, Appellants argue that even if the broadcast of an SSID by an
Access Point can be said to indicate a connection to the Internet, such an
indication cannot be said to have been provided "when configuration of said
gateway for internet connection is completed," as required by claim 35. Id.
In response, the Examiner finds that Benson, at paragraph 8, teaches
that a "smart" AP periodically checks its connection with the network and
broadcasts a primary S SID in response to a determination that the network
connection is available. Ans. 4.
Addressing Appellants' arguments regarding the provision of an
indication of a connection to the Internet "when configuration of said
gateway for internet connection is completed," as required by claim 35, the
Examiner explains that Benson teaches, at paragraph 19, that upon a loss of
network connection the AP broadcasts a secondary SSID. Id. According to
the Examiner, Benson also teaches that after reestablishment of a network
connection (Internet connection is completed), as detected by the ping
process, the primary SSID is once again broadcast. Id.
In reply, Appellants argue that Benson fails to show or suggest
"providing said user terminal with an indication of availability of
connectivity of said gateway to the internet when configuration of said
gateway for internet connection is completed" because there is no express
disclosure of a "configuration" of the gateway, and because the pinging
4
Appeal2013-008121
Application 12/087 ,267
process is continuous and cannot be construed as a "configuration." Reply
Br. 2-3.
ANALYSIS
We find the Examiner's position persuasive. In order to determine the
proper definition of "configuration," we examine Appellants' Specification
where we find that "configuration" is described by Appellants as the process
by which a network access device is connected to the Internet. Spec. 2.
Under that broad but reasonable definition of "configuration," Benson
teaches a network access device (Access Point) that is connected to the
Internet and that periodically may lose the connection to the Internet.
Benson expressly teaches that an access point may "reestablish" its
connection to the Internet (see para. 19) and, thereafter, announce that
reconnection by broadcasting the primary SSID. This disclosure fairly
demonstrates "configuration" under the adopted definition, set forth above.
Consequently, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 35 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Sullivan and Benson. The Access
Point of Benson broadcasts a primary SSID to indicate a connection to the
Internet. Upon losing that connection, the Access Point broadcasts an
alternative SSID. Thereafter, upon reestablishing an Internet connection
(configuration), the Access Point once again broadcasts the primary SSID,
effectively indicating completion of "configuration" of the Access Point for
Internet connection.
Appellants have submitted no separate arguments regarding the
patentability of claims 36, 37, 39--43, and 46-59, so we therefore find no
error in the Examiner's rejection of those claims. Similarly, Appellants
5
Appeal2013-008121
Application 12/087 ,267
argue the patentability of claims 44 and 45 based upon those claims'
dependency from claim 35. For the reasons we set forth above, we find no
error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 44 and 45.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 35-37 and 39-59 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
msc
6