Ex Parte Hassan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 4, 2018

12970034 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 4, 2018)

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.
12/970,034 12/16/2010 AMER A. HASSAN 331546-US-NP 5331
69316 7590 01/08/2018
MICROSOFT CORPORATION
ONE MICROSOFT WAY
REDMOND, WA 98052
EXAMINER
CHOU, ALAN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2451
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/08/2018 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):
u sdocket @ micro soft .com
chriochs @microsoft.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte AMER A. HASSAN, MITESH K. DESAI, MUKUND
SANKARANARAYAN, HENRIQUE FILGUEIRAS, and MARK CLEAR
Appeal 2017-006048
Application 12/970,034
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Microsoft Technology
Licensing, LLC, a wholly owned subsidiary of Microsoft Corp. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-006048
Application 12/970,034
Introduction
Appellants’ Specification describes Wi-Fi Direct as a standard “that
enables both an infrastructure connection and communication as part of a
peer-to-peer group with similar wireless communications that can be
processed with a single radio. This standard . . . extends the popular WI-FI
communications standard for infrastructure-based communications to
support direct connections.” Spec. 14. Appellants state they “recognized
and appreciated that a simple, yet flexible, control mechanism to support
direct communication with devices in a peer-to peer group as well as
communication in an infrastructure mode would greatly expand the usability
and availability of direct communication.” Id. 124.
Claim 1 is exemplary, reproduced here with a disputed limitation in
italics'.
1. A computing device, comprising:
a radio adapted to concurrently connect the computing
device to an infrastructure-based network and to a peer-to-peer
group;
an operating system; and
a memory and a processor that respectively store and
execute instructions organized into at least:
a driver configured to implement a plurality of ports in
the driver as respective interfaces between the driver and the
operating system, the plurality of ports comprising:
an infrastructure mode port configured to enable
an infrastructure mode connection between the operating
system and the infrastructure-based network, the
infrastructure-based network operating in a frequency
range of a particular wireless specification;
a control port configured to establish a peer-to-
peer connection to the peer-to-peer group via
2
Appeal 2017-006048
Application 12/970,034
communications in the frequency range of the particular
wireless specification; and
a peer-to-peer communications port configured to
provide an interface between the operating system and
the peer-to-peer group, the peer-to-peer group operating
in the frequency range of the particular wireless
specification, wherein:
the operating system is configured to interact with the
driver through the plurality of ports to:
establish the peer-to-peer connection through the
control port; and
communicate with the peer-to-peer group through
the peer-to-peer communications port.
App. Br. 10 (Claims App’x).
Rejections
Claims 1—3, 9, 11, 12, 14, 17, 18, and 20 stand rejected under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suumaki (US 2011/0275316
Al; Nov. 10, 2011), Roberts (US 2006/0239208 Al; Oct. 26, 2006), and
Sasakura (US 2009/0011738 Al; Jan. 8, 2009). Final Act. 2-7, 11-20.
Claims 4—6 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Suumaki, Roberts, Sasakura, and Verma (US 2011/0149806 Al; June 23,
2011). Final Act. 7-9.
Claims 7—8 and 10 stand rejected under § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Suumaki, Roberts, Sasakura, Verma, and Camps Mur (US 2012/0178429
Al; July 12,2012). Final Act. 9-11.
Claims 13, 15, 16, and 19 stand rejected under § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Suumaki, Roberts, Sasakura, and Camps Mur. Final Act.
20-21.
3
Appeal 2017-006048
Application 12/970,034
ANALYSIS
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions of reversible error. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions.
Instead, we adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasons as set forth in the
Final Rejection from which this appeal is taken and as set forth in the
Answer.2 We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants present one argument of error in the rejection of claim 1,
which is that the Examiner errs in the finding Sasakura teaches or suggests
the disputed limitation of “a driver configured to implement a plurality of
ports in the driver as respective interfaces between the driver and the
operating system.” See App. Br. 6—9.3
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds Suumaki teaches, inter alia, a
driver “that implements a plurality of ports in software” and that includes
“an infrastructure mode port” and “a peer-to-peer communications port.”
Final Act. 3. The Examiner finds Roberts teaches “a control port,” and that
it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan to combine it into
the driver as taught by Suumaki. Id. at 4. The Examiner then finds that
2 We herein refer to the Specification, filed Dec. 16, 2010 (“Spec.”); the
Final Office Action, mailed Jan. 11, 2016 (“Final Act.”); Appeal Brief, filed
Aug. 11, 2016 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer, mailed Dec. 27, 2016
(“Ans.”); and, the Reply Brief, filed Feb. 24, 2017 (“Reply Br.”).
3 Appellants present no arguments of Examiner error for claims 2—20
substantively separate from the arguments for claim 1. See App. Br. 8—9.
4
Appeal 2017-006048
Application 12/970,034
Sasakura’s teaching of a “port control table” used by its operating system to
interface with multiple ports teaches, inter alia, the disputed limitation. Id.
at 5; see also id. at 6 (explaining why it would have been obvious to the
skilled artisan to combine the teachings of Sasakura with those of Suumaki
and Roberts) and Ans. 2—3.
Appellants contend the finding that Sasakura teaches the disputed
limitation is erroneous because there is no teaching in Sasakura of using its
ports as “respective interfaces between the driver and the operating system.'1'’
App. Br. 7; see also id. at 8, Reply Br. 1—5. Specifically, Appellants contend
the Examiner errs because the ports discussed in Sasakura are physical ports
and thus they neither are “in the driver” nor fairly map to the “interfaces
between the driver and the operating system,” as recited. Reply Br. 2—5.
Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive. “A reference must be
considered for everything it teaches by way of technology and is not limited
to the particular invention it is describing and attempting to protect.” EWP
Corp. v. Reliance Universal Inc., 755 F.2d 898, 907 (Fed. Cir. 1985)
(emphasis omitted). Also, each reference cited by the Examiner must be
read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the
prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed.
Cir. 1986). The relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter
would have been obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the
combined teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425
(CCPA 1981).
The Examiner does not rely on Sasakura’s “physical ports” for the
recited driver-to-operating system port interfaces. Instead, the Examiner
relies on Sasakura’s port control table for teaching the interface limitations.
5
Appeal 2017-006048
Application 12/970,034
See Ans. 2—3. We agree with the Examiner—the port control table-based
interface enables software such as the Application and Software modules 36,
37 shown in Sasakura’s Figure 3 to communicate through Operating System
34 to the Drivers 31. See Sasakura Tflf 88—107. An ordinarily skilled artisan
would have understood Sasakura’s port control table to be part of the
software that enables the operating system to interface with multiple drivers.
Id. There are no “physical ports” in the port control table of Sasakura—
rather, it provides a software interface for the operating system in which
there are entries that correspond to the various supported physical ports. In
other words, it is the port table entries in Sasakura, not the physical ports,
that correspond to the driver-to-operating system ports recited in claim 1.
Appellants do not contest the Examiner’s findings that Suumaki
teaches “a driver configured to implement a plurality of ports in the driver”
and that the combined teachings of Suumaki and Roberts teach the three
different types of ports recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 3^4. We also note
Suumaki teaches use of Wi-Fi Direct for driving multiple protocols through
a single physical port (| 33), which the skilled artisan would have
understood teaches there are drivers for its “infrastructure mode port” and
“peer-to-peer communications port” that correspond to a single physical
port.
In view of the uncontested teachings of Suumaki and Roberts of “a
driver configured to implement a plurality of ports in the driver” that
includes “an infrastructure mode port,” “a peer-to-peer communications
port,” and “a control port,” we agree with the Examiner that it would have
been obvious for the ordinarily skilled artisan to use the port control table of
Sasakura to provide an interface between the operating system and the
6
Appeal 2017-006048
Application 12/970,034
plurality of ports, as recited by the disputed limitation. Appellants do not
point to any evidence of record that the combinations would be “uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” or “represented an
unobvious step over the prior art.” Leapfrog Enters. Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418—19 (2007)). Nor have Appellants provided objective
evidence of secondary considerations which our reviewing court guides
“operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak
Cheese and Powder Sys., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The
Examiner’s findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would “be
able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle”
because the skilled artisan is “a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 420-21. We are persuaded the claimed
subject matter exemplifies the principle that “[t]he combination of familiar
elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does
no more than yield predictable results.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 416,
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claim 1,
and also of independent claims 11 and 17, which Appellant argues together
with claim 1. Because Appellants present no separate arguments of
Examiner error for the dependent claims, we also, accordingly, sustain the
rejections of claims 2—10, 12—16, and 18—20.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1—20 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
7
Appeal 2017-006048
Application 12/970,034
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
8