Ex Parte Cui

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 25, 2017

13691343 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 25, 2017)

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.
13/691,343 11/30/2012 Kai Cui 83138103 7539
56436 7590
Hewlett Packard Enterprise
3404 E. Harmony Road
Mail Stop 79
Fort Collins, CO 80528
EXAMINER
CHOWDHURY, HARUN UR R
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/27/2017 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):
hpe.ip.mail@hpe.com
chris. mania @ hpe. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KAI CUI
Appeal 2016-003655
Application 13/691,343
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-003655
Application 13/691,343
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims
1—3, 5, 6, 14—16, 18, and 19.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
The claims are directed to a method and device for radio resource
management. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed
subject matter:
1. A method of radio resource management for a
communication network including an Access Controller and a
plurality of Access Points, the Access Controller managing the
plurality of Access Points each of which provides a radio for
accessing the network, the method comprising:
determining, by the Access Controller, whether a
transmission power of a present radio corresponding to one of
the plurality of Access Points is less than or equal to a minimum
transmission power threshold;
determining, by the Access Controller, whether a
predetermined condition to down-adjust the transmission power
of the present radio is satisfied;
in response to determining that the transmission power of
the present radio is less than or equal to the minimum
transmission power threshold and that the predetermined
condition to down-adjust the transmission power of the present
1 Appellant indicates that the real party in interest is Hangzhou H3C
Technologies, Co., Ltd. is a wholly-owned affiliate of Hewlett-Packard
Company. (App. Br. 3).
2 Claim 13 is indicated as allowable by the Examiner and claims 4, 7—12, 17,
and 20—25 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim,
but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the
limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Final Act. 14.
2
Appeal 2016-003655
Application 13/691,343
radio is satisfied, joining into a group the present radio and other
radios corresponding to other Access Points of the plurality of
Access Points which have signal strengths higher than a power-
adjustment threshold; and
assigning a channel from amongst a plurality of available
channels to each of the radios in the group including the present
radio.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Theobold et al. US 7,315,533 B2 Jan. 1, 2008
Vinnakota US 2009/0067393 Al Mar. 12, 2009
Honkanen et al. US 7,991,413 B2 Aug. 2, 2011
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Vinnakota in view of Theobald.
Final Act. 3—12.
Claims 2 and 15 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Vinnakota and Theobald as applied to claim 1 and
14 above and further in view of Honkanen. Final Act. 13.
ANALYSIS
With respect to claims 1, 3, 5, 6, 14, 16, 18, and 19, Appellant argues
the claims together and relies upon the reasons set forth with respect to
independent claim 1, but Appellant set forth separate arguments for
3
Appeal 2016-003655
Application 13/691,343
patentability of claims 5, 6, 18, and 19. (App. Br. 10—11). We select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim for the group and will
address Appellant’s arguments thereto. 37 CFR 41.37 (c)(l)(iv).
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellant
contends:
However, Vinnakota does not teach or suggest the features
recited above. Instead, Vinnakota shows in Fig. 1 a coverage
area of a wireless network including nine Access Points (APs)
(See the circles in Fig. 1 ofVinnakota). The capacity of an AP is
the number of users that it can support. When the number of
users in the area is less than a threshold (eight users), only one
AP in the center (the first AP) is turned on to provide coverage
for the area. However, when the number of users increases to
more than eight, the other eight APs are also turned on to support
the increased load of users. Vinnakota, paragraphs [0009]-
[0013],
As such, Vinnakota determines whether the load at the
first AP increases above the threshold (eight users). If the load
at the first AP increases to more than the threshold of eight users,
the other APs are turned on to support the increased load.
However, the increase of the load does not reduce the
transmission power of the radio of the first AP. In other words,
in Vinnakota, the number of users who are trying to access the
first AP may increase, but the strength of the transmission power
of the first AP does not reduce. In particular, the load of the first
AP in Vinnakota may the increase, but the transmission power of
the radio of the first AP does not reduce to less than a minimum
threshold. Accordingly, Vinnakota may determine whether the
number of users increases above a threshold, but Vinnakota does
not determine whether the transmission power of the radio of an
Access Point is less than a minimum threshold. In fact,
Vinnakota does not disclose any “minimum transmission power
threshold.” Therefore, Vinnakota fails to teach or suggest,
‘determining, by the Access Controller, whether a transmission
power of a present radio corresponding to one of the plurality of
4
Appeal 2016-003655
Application 13/691,343
Access Points is less than or equal to a minimum transmission
power threshold, ’ as recited in claim 1.
Furthermore, Vinnakota joins the first AP with the other 8
APs when the number of users or load increases. The increase in
the load does not reduce the transmission power of the radio to
less than a minimum threshold. Thus, Vinnakota joins the first
AP with the other APs because there are more than 8 users who
access the first AP, and not because the transmission power of
the radio of the first AP is less than a minimum threshold.
(App. Br. 8-9).
The Examiner maintains:
By determining the load in the target area, Vinnakota actually
determines whether the transmission power of the center access
point (current radio) is to be maintained at the current transmit
power level (minimum transmission power) or needs to be
decreased to shrink the coverage and enable other access points.
Therefore, Vinnakota teaches to determine, whether a
transmission power of a present radio (first/center access point)
corresponding to one of the plurality of Access Points (Access
points in the target area/concentric ring) is less than or equal to a
minimum transmission power threshold (current transmit power
of the first/center access point to cover the initial target area).
(Ans. 15). Appellant contends that the Examiner’s position is “unclear and
confusing as to which element in Vinnakota makes a determination of
whether the transmission power of an Access Point is less than or equal to a
minimum transmission power threshold, as recited in claim 1.” (Reply Br.
4). Appellant further contends that “Vinnakota determines the number of
users (the load) in the target area, and does not determine the transmission
power of the first/center Access Point with respect to a threshold. As a
result, Vinnakota does not determine whether the transmission power of the
first/center Access Point is less than or equal to a minimum threshold.”
5
Appeal 2016-003655
Application 13/691,343
(Reply Br. 5). We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not made any
specific findings of fact to support the conclusion that the Vinnakota
reference teaches or suggests determining whether the transmission power of
the present radio is less than or equal to a minimum transmission power
threshold.
Additionally, Appellant contends that “Vinnakota does not disclose
that the other APs in the group have signal strength higher than a minimum
threshold, as recited in independent claim 1.” (App. Br. 9).
The Examiner responds to Appellant’s argument but does not
specifically address the claim limitation determining whether the
transmission power of the present radio is less than or equal to a minimum
transmission power threshold. (Ans. 17—18).
In response Appellant further contends that “in Vinnakota, the
first/center Access Point joins the group in response to the increase of the
load (number of users) in the target area, and not in response to the
transmission power of the first/center Access Point being less than or equal
to a minimum threshold.” (Reply Br. 6). Again, we agree with Appellant
and do not find that the Examiner addressed the express language of
independent claim 1. Consequently, we cannot sustain the obviousness
rejection of independent claim 1 based upon the combination of the
Vinnakota and Theobald references as applied by the Examiner in the
rejection.
With respect to independent claim 14, Appellant relies upon the same
arguments advanced with respect to independent claim 1. (App. Br. 10).
Because we find that independent claim 14 contains similar limitations
6
Appeal 2016-003655
Application 13/691,343
addressed above, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14 for
the same reasons.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 5, 6, 16, 18, and 19, Appellant
relies upon the arguments advanced with respect to their respective parent
independent claims 1 and 14. Consequently, we cannot sustain the rejection
of these dependent claims for the reasons addressed above with respect to
independent claim 1.
With respect to dependent claims 5, 6, 18, and 19, Appellant provides
additional arguments directed towards the Theobold reference. (App. Br.
10—12). We need not address Appellant’s’ additional arguments because the
Examiner has not identified how the Theobold reference remedies the
deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 1. (Ans. 20). As
a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5, 6, 18, and
19.
With respect to dependent claims 2 and 15, Appellant provides
additional arguments directed towards the Honkanen reference. (App. Br.
12—14). We need not address Appellant’s additional arguments because the
Examiner has not identified how the Honkanen reference remedies the
deficiencies noted above with respect to independent claim 1. (Ans. 21). As
a result, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2 and 15.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—3, 5, 6, 14—16, 18, and 19
based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
7
Appeal 2016-003655
Application 13/691,343
DECISION
For the above reasons, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1—3, 5, 6, 14—16, 18, and 19 based upon obviousness under 35 U.S.C.
§103.
REVERSED
8