Ex Parte Draznin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 14, 2017

12979118 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 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.
12/979,118 12/27/2010 Sagiv DRAZNIN 20100733 2471
7590 11/16/201725537
VERIZON
PATENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
EXAMINER
BLAIR, DOUGLAS B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2442
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/16/2017 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):
patents @ verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex Parte SAGIV DRAZNIN, PATRICIA RUEY-JANE CHANG,
VIKRAM K. RAWAT, and LALIT R. KOTECHA
Appeal 2015-006255
Application 12/979,118
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JUSTIN BUSCH, and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHAW, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL1
Appellants2 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—24, which represent all the pending
claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief filed
January 2, 2015 (“App. Br.”), the Specification filed December 27, 2010
(“Spec.”), the Reply Brief filed June 5, 2015, the Examiner’s Answer mailed
April 8, 2015 (“Ans.”) and the Final Office Action mailed July 1, 2014
(“Final Act.”).
2 Appellants identify Verizon Communications Inc. and its subsidiary
companies as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2015-006255
Application 12/979,118
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system that enables a user
device to dynamically select via which service provider network to
communicate. Spec. 110.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
storing, by a user device, user preferences relating to
selection of a network, from a plurality of networks, via which
to establish a connection, wherein the user preferences include
information for selecting the network based on rates and
information for selecting the network based on signal strength
or quality levels, and
wherein the information for selecting further comprise a
first weighting factor associated with the rates, a second
weighting factor associated with the signal strength, a third
weighting factor associated with the quality levels of the
plurality of networks, and a threshold for the rates or another
threshold for the signal strength, and
wherein the first weighting factor, the second weighting
factor and the third weighting factors are used to generate a
rank for each of the plurality of networks;
receiving, by the user device and from a server device
that communicates with the plurality of networks, a plurality of
rates associated with use of the plurality of networks;
detecting, by the user device, signals transmitted by the
plurality of networks;
determining, by the user device and for the plurality of
networks, signal strength or quality levels associated with the
signals transmitted by the plurality of networks;
ranking each of the plurality of networks, based on one or
more of the rates, signal strength, or quality levels and the
associated weighting factors;
2
Appeal 2015-006255
Application 12/979,118
selecting, by the user device, a particular network, of the
plurality of networks, based on the user preferences, the ranking
of the plurality of networks, and the threshold for the plurality
of rates or the other threshold for the signal strength; and
establishing, by the user device, a connection via the
particular network.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 4—11, 14, and 16—19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Karaoguz et al. (US 7,606,570 B2;
issued Oct. 20, 2009 (“Karaoguz”)), Cheston et al. (US 2005/0066033 Al;
published Mar. 24, 2005 (“Cheston”)), Yung et al. (US 7,577,154 Bl; issued
Aug. 18, 2009 (“Yung”)), and Rager et al. (US 7,603,120 B2; issued Oct. 13,
2009 (“Rager”)). Final Act. 3-5.
The Examiner rejected claims 2,3 13, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Karaoguz, Cheston, Yung, Rager, and Steinberg
et al. (US 2009/0005041 Al; published Jan. 1, 2009 (“Steinberg”). Final
Act. 5—6.
The Examiner rejected claims 3 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Karaoguz, Cheston, Yung, Rager, and Guilford et
al. (US 7,433,929 B2; issued Oct. 7, 2008 (“Guilford”)). Final Act. 7.
The Examiner rejected claims 20 and 22—24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Karaoguz and Cheston. Final Act. 2.
The Examiner rejected claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Karaoguz in view of Cheston and Steinberg. Final Act.
6-7.
3 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claim 2 in the Answer. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal 2015-006255
Application 12/979,118
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the
Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’
arguments. Appellants do not proffer sufficient argument or evidence for us
to find error in the Examiner’s findings. See Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d
1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We agree with and adopt the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions in the Final Rejection (Final Act. 2—7)
and Answer (Ans. 3—31). We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants argue Cheston does not teach “wherein the information for
selecting further comprise a first weighting factor associated with the rates, a
second weighting factor associated with the signal strength, a third
weighting factor associated with the quality levels of the plurality of
networks,” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 12. We are not persuaded by this
argument because we agree with the Examiner that Cheston discloses
various factors are weighted, and those factors include cost, rates, and signal
strength. Ans. 10 (citing Cheston || 69, 71). Appellants acknowledge that
Cheston uses weighting factors. App. Br. 11; see also id. at 13 (“These
portions of Cheston . . . disclose the use of weighting factors to select the
best network service.”). Cheston’s Table 5 explicitly depicts weighting
factors, including, for example, a different specific weighting factor
associated with cost, signal strength, and bandwidth. The Examiner also
explains his findings regarding Cheston’s teachings. Ans. 10. Although
Appellants generally allege in the Reply Brief a disagreement with the
Examiner’s findings (Reply Br. 5), Appellants do not persuasively explain
why Cheston’s disclosures in paragraphs 69, 71, 72, and Table 5 fail to teach
these claimed elements. Rather, Appellants merely reiterate the claim
4
Appeal 2015-006255
Application 12/979,118
limitations and state Cheston does not teach the limitations. Appellants’
argument with respect to Cheston, which consists of a conclusory statement
unsupported by evidence from the record, is insufficient to overcome the
Examiner’s prima facie conclusion of obviousness. Our reviewing court has
explicitly held that “[37 C.F.R. §] 41.37 require[s] ... more substantive
arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and
a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the
prior art.” In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Appellants generally argue the combination of Yung and Rager with
Karaoguz is improper. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 6—7. These arguments are
unsupported by evidence in the record. As the Examiner finds, all of the
cited references deal with selecting a network, and the Examiner explains
the motivation for combining the references. Ans. 20; Final Act. 2—7.
Appellants do not provide any persuasive reasoning in their Briefs to support
the allegation that such a combination is improper.
Therefore, for these reasons, and for the additional reasons stated in
the Final Rejection and Answer, we sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 1,
and dependent claims 4—10, which are not separately argued with
particularity. For the same reasons, we sustain the rejections of independent
claim 11, and claims 14 and 17—19, for which Appellants present
substantially the same arguments as claim 1. App. Br. 18. We also sustain
the rejection of claim 16 for the reasons stated in the Final Rejection and
Answer. Ans. 21—22.
We also sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 15 as unpatentable over
Karaoguz, Cheston, Yung, Rager, and Steinberg, which are not separately
argued with particularity. We also sustain the rejection of claims 20 and 22—
5
Appeal 2015-006255
Application 12/979,118
24 as being unpatentable over Karaoguz and Cheston for the reasons stated
in the Answer, and for the same reasons as discussed above with respect to
claim 1. Ans. 25—30. We also sustain the rejection of claim 21 as being
unpatentable over Karaoguz in view of Cheston and Steinberg for the
reasons stated in the Final Rejection and Answer. Id. at 30-31.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 and 3—24 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6