Ex Parte Gallegos et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 28, 201613459401 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 28, 2016) Copy Citation 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. 13/459,401 04/30/2012 Fabiel Zuniga Gallegos 83002356 8966 56436 7590 12/30/2016 Hewlett Packard Enterprise 3404 E. Harmony Road Mail Stop 79 Fort Collins, CO 80528 EXAMINER BELETE, BERHANU D ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2468 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/30/2016 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): 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 FABIEL ZUNIGA GALLEGOS and ALLAN DELGADO CAMPOS1 Appeal 2015-006144 Application 13/459,401 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 1—15. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellants identify Hewlett-Packard Development Company, LP as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal 2015-006144 Application 13/459,401 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to configuring and arranging a plurality of wireless access points (WAPs) at a site to provide a desired level of coverage. Spec. Tflf 12—13, Abstract. Claims 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized in italics'. 1. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium encoded with instructions executable by a processor of a computing device, the storage medium comprising: instructions to store, in memory of the computing device, a plurality of coverage monitors, each specifying at least one coverage parameter for an associated region of a site model; instructions to determine, with the processor, if an initial coverage prediction for an initial wireless access point (WAP) configuration for a set of WAP objects satisfies each coverage parameter of each of the coverage monitors; instructions to iteratively adjust at least one WAP setting value for the set of WAP objects to generate at least one first trial WAP configuration, if the initial coverage prediction fails to satisfy at least one of the coverage parameters; instructions to iteratively adjust at least one WAP position value for the set of WAP objects to generate at least one second trial WAP configuration if, for each first trial WAP configuration, a respective first coverage prediction fails to satisfy at least one of the coverage parameters', and instructions to alter the number of WAP objects in the set of WAP objects if, for each second trial WAP configuration, a respective second coverage prediction fails to satisfy at least one of the coverage parameters. 2 Appeal 2015-006144 Application 13/459,401 The Examiner’s Rejection Claims 1—15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Atwal et al. (US 2010/0150027 Al; June 17, 2010) (“Atwal”) and Kezys (US 2010/0135184 Al; June 3, 2010). Final Act. 6— 22. Issue on Appeal2 Did the Examiner err in finding claim 1 does not require a conditional relationship between adjusting at least one WAP setting value and adjusting at least WAP position value and, therefore, such a relationship need not be taught or suggested by the proposed combination of Atwal and Kezys? ANALYSIS3 Claims 1—12 In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Kezys to teach the limitation directed to iteratively adjusting at least one WAP setting value for the set of WAP objects to generate at least one first trial WAP configuration. Final Act. 8 (citing Kezys 17, 58—63, Fig. 8). The Examiner relies on Atwal to teach the remaining limitations of claim 1, including iteratively adjusting at least one WAP position value for the set of WAP objects to 2 We only address this issue, which is dispositive. We do not address additional issues raised by Appellants’ arguments. 3 Throughout this Decision we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed November 20, 2014 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed June 3, 2015 (“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed on April 9, 2015 (“Ans.”); and the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed on June 24, 2014, from which this Appeal is taken. 3 Appeal 2015-006144 Application 13/459,401 generate at least one second trial WAP configuration if, for each first trial WAP configuration, a respective first coverage prediction fails to satisfy at least one of the coverage parameters. Final Act. 7—8 (citing Atwal Tflf 64—67, 90, 100-103, Figs. 4, 10). Appellants argue the limitations of iteratively adjusting at least one WAP setting value and iteratively adjusting at least one WAP position value are conditionally related to each other and that the Examiner erred by not finding such a conditional relationship in the proposed combination of prior art references. App. Br. 8—11. In particular, Appellants explain claim 1 states the adjustment of at least one WAP setting value generates at least one first trial WAP configuration. App. Br. 8. Appellants further explain if for each first trial WAP configurations (each generated by iterative adjustments to at least one WAP setting value), the coverage prediction fails to satisfy at least one of the coverage parameters, then adjust at least one WAP position value for the set of WAP objects to generate at least one second trial WAP configuration. App. Br. 8—9. Appellants assert “[t]he conditional performance of adjusting a WAP position value in response to a determination that a trial WAP configuration generated due to adjusting a WAP setting value results in a coverage prediction failing to satisfy a coverage parameter clearly does not exist in Atwal.” App. Br. 10. In response, the Examiner does not find a conditional relationship between the instructions for adjusting at least one WAP setting value and the instructions for adjusting at least one WAP position value. Ans. 4. We find Appellants’ arguments persuasive of Examiner error. We find claim 1 sets forth instructions that require a particular order for adjusting various parameters for the set of WAP objects to satisfy the 4 Appeal 2015-006144 Application 13/459,401 coverage parameters for each of the coverage monitors. Specifically, the instructions of claim 1 require that if the initial coverage prediction fails to satisfy all of the coverage parameters, at least one WAP setting value is adjusted. The adjustment of a WAP setting value results in a first trial WAP configuration being generated (different from the initial configuration as a result of the setting adjustment). Claim 1 further instructs if each of the first trial WAP configurations fails to satisfy the coverage parameters, then at least one WAP position value is adjusted to generate at least one second trial WAP configuration. In other words, the instructions of claim 1 teach a WAP position value is not adjusted unless it has been determined that adjustments to at least one WAP setting value still fails to satisfy the coverage parameters. Thus, we find there is an order and a conditional relationship between the instructions for WAP setting value adjustment limitation and the instructions for WAP position value adjustment limitation. Further, the Examiner does not sufficiently identify where such a conditional relationship between Kezys’ WAP setting value adjustment and Atwal’s WAP position value adjustment is taught or suggested. For the reasons discussed supra, we are persuaded of Examiner error. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. For similar reasons we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7, which recites similar limitations. Additionally, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2—6 and 8—12, which depend therefrom. Claims 13—15 Claim 13 is similar to independent claims 1 and 7, but it is directed to a method rather than instructions on a non-transitory storage medium. 5 Appeal 2015-006144 Application 13/459,401 As an initial matter, we note the adjusting and altering steps of claim 13 are conditional. That is, a WAP setting value is adjusted if in the initial WAP configuration fails to satisfy the coverage parameters; a WAP power value is adjusted if the first trial WAP configurations (generated by adjusting WAP setting values) fail to satisfy the coverage parameters; and the number of WAP objects is altered if the second trial WAP configurations (generated by adjusting WAP position values) fail to satisfy the coverage parameters. Conditional steps employed in a method claim need not be found in the prior art if, under the broadest reasonable construction, the method need not invoke the steps. Ex parte Schulhauser, No. 2013-007847, 2016 WL 6277792, at *3—6 (PTAB April 28, 2016) (concluding the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim encompassed situations in which conditional method steps “need not be reached”) (precedential). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim does not require performing the conditional method steps at issue, the Examiner does not need to present evidence of obviousness for these steps. See Schulhauser, 2016 WL 6277792, at *4 (“The Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the remaining method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.”). Thus, the Examiner need only find the combination of Atwal and Kezys teaches or suggests “receiving, with a network interface of a computing device, a plurality of coverage monitors, each defining at least one coverage parameter for an associated region of a site model” and “storing the coverage monitors in memory of the computing device.” The Examiner finds Atwal teaches these limitations. Final Act. 18 (citing Atwal 6 Appeal 2015-006144 Application 13/459,401 11 8—9, 32, 63—70, 91, Figs. 2, 4, 10). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s findings regarding these limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 13. Further, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 15, which depend therefrom and were not argued separately. See App. Br. 11. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—12. We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 13—15. 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-IN-PART 7 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation