Ex Parte DAWSON et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 24, 2015

11842757 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. DAWSON, PETER G. FINN,
RICK A. HAMILTON, II, and JENNY S. LI
1

________________

Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757
Technology Center 2600
________________

Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN G. NEW, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

NEW, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

1
The Real Party-in-Interest is interest is International Business Machines
Corporation of Armonk, New York. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757

2
SUMMARY

Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–28.
2
Specifically, claims 1–25 stand
rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the
combination of Karaoguz et al. (US 2005/0233749 A1, October 20, 2005)
(“Karaoguz”) and Tejaswini et al. (US 2005/0071476 A1, March 31, 2005)
(“Tejaswini”).
Claims 26–28 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being obvious over the combination of Karaoguz, Tejaswini, Saqunetti et
al. (US 2004/0176905 A1, September 9, 2004) (“Saqunetti”), and Graves et
al. (US 2005/0176420 A1, August 11, 2005).
3

We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

2
Although both the Examiner and Appellants indicate claim 19 is excluded
from the list of claims rejected, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as
claim 6. Ans. 9; see also Final Act. 7. Because Appellants and Examiner
both address the patentability of claim 19 (together with claims 13–18, 20,
21, 23, and 24) in their respective Appeal Brief and Answer, we address the
patentability of claim 19 together with those claims. See App. Br. 15; Ans.
32.
3
The Examiner also rejected claim 25 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C.
§ 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Final Act. 2–3. That
rejection has since been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 21.
Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757

3
NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method of locating a
wireless connection among a plurality of possible wireless connections.
More particularly, Appellants claim a system and method of locating a user
preferred wireless connection among a plurality of possible wireless
connections. The method includes scanning for available networks and
determining whether the available networks satisfy one or more user
preferences. The method further includes establishing a secondary network
connection with one of the available networks based on one or more user
preferences being satisfied. Abstract.

REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS

Because Appellants make the same arguments for claims 1–7 and 9–
12, we select independent claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 6. Claim 1
recites:
1. A method comprising

scanning for available networks;

determining whether any of the available networks
satisfy one or more user defined preferences; and

establishing a secondary network connection with one of
the available networks based on the one or more user defined
preferences being satisfied, the one or more user defined
preferences comprising a most reliable network determined by
using established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call
drop-offs.

App. Br. 37.

Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757

4

Appellants argue dependent claim 26 separately. App. Br. 23. Claim
26 recites:
26. The method of claim 8, wherein:

the history table includes unique identifiers of the
available networks, actual connection types of the available
networks, MAC or IP addresses of the available networks, and
indications whether the available networks are encryption
enabled or disabled; and

the method further comprises:

checking whether a name of a least expensive and
reliable network from the history table appears in a list of the
available networks found during the scanning;

when the name of the least expensive and reliable
network from the history table appears in the list, selecting the
least expensive and reliable network from the history table; and

when the name of the least expensive and reliable
network from the history table does not appear in the list,
checking whether a name of a next expensive and reliable
network from the history table appears in the list.

App. Br. 42.

ISSUES AND ANALYSES
A. Claim 1
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Tejaswini
teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “scanning for available
Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757

5
networks” and “a most reliable network determined by using established,
empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs.” App. Br. 7.

Analysis
Appellants argue that Tejaswini teaches a mobile station
disassociating with a first access point and associating with a second access
point, if a link quality with the first access point goes below a “good
threshold” due, e.g., to the mobile station moving away from the first access
point. App. Br. 8 (citing Tejaswini ¶ 12). According to Appellants,
Tejaswini also teaches historical association data that may include a ranking
of access points based on average data throughput, duration of previous
associations, a reason for disassociation, and number of previous
associations. Id. However, Appellants argue, these criteria of Tejaswini do
not amount to established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-
offs. Id.
By way of example, Appellants contend that Tejaswini teaches that if
an average data throughput for a previous association with an access point is
high, but the duration of that association is short, a mobile station may
decide not to associate with the access point. App. Br. 8. (citing Tejaswini
¶¶ 13, 24–26). By way of further example, Appellants submit that Tejaswini
teaches that if the average duration for the previous association is moderate,
but the duration of the last association is long, the mobile station may decide
to associate with the access point. Id.
However, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that the
historical association data thus taught by Tejaswini constitutes the
“established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs” recited
Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757

6
by claim 1, because “short association duration indicates more drop[ped]
call[s], [whereas] longer association duration indicates [fewer] or no
drop[ped] call[s].” App. Br. 8 (quoting Final Act. 5). Appellants argue that
the short durations of the previous associations could simply indicate short
calls, whereas longer durations might simply indicate longer calls. It is
Appellants’ position that the duration of the previous associations is
unrelated to call drop-offs. Id. at 9. Similarly, Appellants argue that average
data throughput may be high for many reasons (e.g., a large amount of
transferred data) that are unrelated to no or few call drop-offs. Id.
Appellants argue further that Tejaswini teaches that disassociation is
based on a drop in link quality. App. Br. 10 (citing, e.g., Tejaswini ¶ 12).
Appellants submit that the use of reasons for disassociation results in a
determination that a user should not look to an access point. Id. By way of
contrast, Appellants contend that their claimed invention looks to a most
reliable network to connect thereto, by determining the good quality of the
link, e.g., no or few drop-off calls. Id. In other words, Appellants
characterize the teachings of Tejaswini as determining which networks not
to connect to, whereas their invention determines which networks with
which to connect. Id.
The Examiner responds that, as an initial matter, the claim term “most
reliable” would not allow one of ordinary skill in the art to distinctively
contemplate clear and precise guidelines of what constitutes “reliable” and
“most reliable.” Ans. 23. Furthermore, the Examiner finds, Appellants’
Specification uses the same terminology without substantially providing any
such guidelines that define a degree of network reliability. Id. at 23–24.
Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757

7
The Examiner also finds that, even if what defines a “most reliable
network” is “the established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call
drop-offs,” the Examiner finds that Tejaswini teaches a network access point
selection procedure in which a variety of historical data parameters are
considered, either individually, or in combination, depending on user
preferences. Ans. 24 (citing Tejaswini ¶¶ 13, 14, 25). The Examiner finds
that Tejaswini teaches that such parameters include “data rates, security,
duration of last association, reason for [dis]association, number of previous
associations, etc.” Id. The Examiner further finds that Tejaswini teaches
that a collection of such past historical data is examined to select an access
point that meets the user preferences. Id. (citing Tejaswini ¶ 25).
The Examiner also points to the passage of Tejaswini reciting “[a]lso
for example, if a previous association was short, and the disassociation was
caused by the access point, the mobile station may decide not to associate
with the access point.” Ans. 24. The Examiner finds that such a dropped
call is typically a call that is terminated by the network side due to
degradation of one or more various quality factors. Id.
We agree with the Examiner. As an initial matter, we reject
Appellants’ characterization of Tejaswini as choosing only which networks
with which not to connect. See App. Br. 10. Tejaswini explicitly teaches
“Any amount of association history data may be utilized in the decision
whether or not to associate with an access point.” Tejaswini ¶ 25. Thus,
Tejaswini teaches choosing to associate (or not) with an access point based
upon the past association history.
Tejaswini further teaches:
Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757

8
At 320, mobile station 102 accesses an average data throughput
for past associations with access point 120, and at 330, mobile
station 102 accesses duration data for past associations with
access point 120. At 340, mobile station 102 accesses reasons
for disassociation for past associations with access point 120,
and at 350, mobile station 102 accesses a number of previous
associations with access point 120.

Tejaswini ¶ 23. Tejaswini thus teaches evaluating available networks based
upon their historical (i.e., “established”), measurable (i.e., “empirical”) past
interactions (i.e., “patterns”). Tejaswini also teaches that, when reviewing
the association history of an access point:
[I]f a previous association was short, and the disassociation was
caused by the access point, the mobile station may decide not to
associate with the access point. On the other hand, if a previous
association was short, but the disassociation was caused by the
mobile station, the mobile station may decide to associate with
the access point or may decide to consider other data in support
of the association decision.
Tejaswini ¶ 25.
We find that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill
in the art that an instance in which a short duration call was disassociated by
the access point would be an instance of a call being “dropped off” by the
access point, whereas a short duration call terminated by the mobile station
may reflect another reason for disassociation (e.g., a dialed wrong number)
and therefore may prompt a different decision as to whether to associate
with the access point. We consequently find that a person of ordinary skill
in the art would realize that the teachings of Tejaswini recited supra teach
the limitation of claim 1 reciting “a most reliable network determined by
using established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs.”
Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757

9
Appellants do not separately argue claims 2–7 and 9–12 (App. Br. 12–
13) and thus, for the same reasons as claim 1 discussed supra, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 2–7 and 9–12.
Appellants present essentially the same arguments regarding the
rejection of claims 13–21 and 23–24 (App. Br. 15–18) and thus, for
essentially the same reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13–21 and 23–24.

B. Claims 8, 22, and 25
Appellants argue claims 8, 22, and 25 separately. However,
Appellants’ arguments with respect to each of the claims are essentially the
same as those presented for claim 1, viz., the duration of the previous
associations do not indicate the existence of any network call drop-offs
during the previous associations and the Examiner therefore failed to
demonstrate that the combined cited prior art teaches or suggests the
limitation reciting “a most reliable network determined by using established,
empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs.” App. Br. 13–15, 18–
20, and 20–23. We have related supra why we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ arguments in this respect, and we consequently affirm the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 22, and 25.

C. Claim 26–28
Issue
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Karaoguz, Tejaswini, and Saqunetti teaches or suggests the
limitation of claim 26 reciting “checking whether a name of a least
Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757

10
expensive and reliable network from the history table appears in a list of the
available networks found during the scanning.” App. Br. 24.

Analysis
Appellants argue claims 26–28 separately. Appellants contend that
the Examiner’s findings were incomplete, in that the Examiner cited
Saqunetti as teaching only “the concept of checking for least expensive
among the available and select the said least expensive network.” App. Br.
24 (citing Final Act. 24). Appellants argue that the Examiner did not find
that Saqunetti disclosed the claim term “and reliable” from the disputed
limitation. Id.
Claim 26 depends from claim 1 and therefore incorporates all of the
limitations of claim 1. We have related supra why we find that Tejaswini
teaches the limitation of claim 1 reciting the determination of “a most
reliable network determined by using established, empirical patterns
indicating no or few call drop-offs.” Having established the reliability of an
access point based upon past association history of, inter alia, “drop-offs,”
we agree with the Examiner that it would be obvious to an artisan of
ordinary skill to combine that teaching with that of Karaoguz, which teaches
determining and displaying “cost of use” when contacting local network
access points. See Ans. 16 (citing Karaoguz ¶ 71). We therefore find that it
would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
teachings of and Tejaswini and Karaoguz to arrive at the limitation reciting
“checking whether a name of a least expensive and reliable network from
the history table appears in a list of the available networks found during the
scanning.”
Appeal 2012-003701
Application 11/842,757

11
With respect to claim 27, which depends from independent claim 25,
Appellants make arguments similar to those employed in contesting the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 26. App. Br. 28–29. Those arguments are
similarly not persuasive with respect to claim 27. Therefore, for the reasons
related supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27.
With respect to claim 28, which depends from claim 25, Appellants
repeat their arguments made with respect to both claim 1 and claim 26.
App. Br. 30–35. We have related supra why we do not find these arguments
persuasive, and for those reasons, we similarly affirm the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 28.

DECISION
The Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–28 as unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. §103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

sl