Ex Parte Hofstaedter et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 201613561490 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 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. 13/561,490 07/30/2012 Christian E. HOFSTAEDTER P41399 7179 7055 7590 12/21/2016 GREENBLUM & BERNSTEIN, P.L.C. 1950 ROLAND CLARKE PLACE RESTON, VA 20191 EXAMINER ELMORE, GREGORY M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/21/2016 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): gbpatent@gbpatent.com greenblum.bernsteinplc@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHRISTIAN E. HOFSTAEDTER, REYES CANALES HE, EDWARD GOZIKER, JAMES S. SIMPKINS, FERNANDO GARCIA-DUARTE, JULIA RENOUARD, JOSEPH T. SAVARESE, MARK V. KIMMERLY, ZHENWU WANG, JOHN DANGOV, PAUL L. HOOVER, and MICHAEL L. SNYDER Appeal 2016-002820 Application 13/561,490 Technology Center 2400 Before THU A. DANG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges. DANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2016-002820 Application 13/561,490 A. INVENTION According to Appellants, the invention relates to “wireless communications,” and more particularly to “the combined practices of Network Performance Management and Mobile Device Management” (Spec. 12). B. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A mobile device auditing system for monitoring multiple available networks accessible by a mobile device at at least one global positioning location within a mobile communications environment, the mobile device auditing system comprising: an acquisition device to acquire data transmitted from the mobile device that is related to at least one of: service coverage for the mobile device in each of the multiple available networks at the at least one global positioning location; service quality for the mobile device in each of the multiple available networks at the at least one global positioning location; and service usage for the mobile device in each of the multiple available networks at the at least one global positioning location; and a plotter to record the data acquired by the acquisition device for each of the multiple available networks at the at least one global positioning location on one or more audit maps. 2 Appeal 2016-002820 Application 13/561,490 C. REJECTION 1. Claims 1, 2, 4—7, 10, 11, 13—16, 19, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Steinberg (US 2009/0005041 Al; pub. Jan 1, 2009), and Rhemtulla (US 2006/0068805 Al; pub. Mar. 30, 2006). 2. Claims 3, and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Steinberg, Rhemtulla, and Wieczorek (US 6,125,278; iss. Sept. 26, 2000). 3. Claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Steinberg, Rhemtulla, and Dees (US 2007/0203645; pub. Aug. 30, 2007). II. ISSUES The principal issues before us are whether the Examiner erred in finding that Steinberg in view of Rhemtulla teaches or suggests an “acquisition device” to acquire “data transmitted from the mobile device that is related to at least one of. . . service coverage for the mobile device . . . ; service quality for the mobile device . . . ; and service usage for the mobile device in each of the multiple available networks at the at least one global positioning location ...” (claim 1, emphasis added). III. FINDINGS OF FACT The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of the evidence. Steinberg 1. Steinberg discloses an information processing system that receives network information associated with at least one access network, and a new access network is selected based on the received network information (| 5). 3 Appeal 2016-002820 Application 13/561,490 2. The wireless device transmits information that it has observed about all potential access networks to the information processing system (1 7). 3. The information at the information processing system is associated with networks near a wireless device based on the wireless device’s geographical location, and can identify proximal target networks and information such as cost, bandwidth availability, Quality of Service factors, coverage capabilities relative to the device’s current location, and the like (1 41). 4. In one embodiment, the information processing system requests that the wireless device transmits information associated with its network scans and incorporates the received results from the wireless device into the registry database to improve the target information for subsequent requests (1149-51). IV. ANALYSIS Appellants contend Steinberg’s wireless device 108 cannot “correspond to the recited acquisition device” because to those ordinarily skilled in the art “wireless device 108 would not have been understood to acquire data transmitted from the mobile device’ '' (App. Br. 13). Although Appellants concedes that Steinberg discloses that “‘information associated’ with [target] networks recorded by device 108 can be transmitted to information processing system 120 ‘to populate the registry database 124,’” Appellants contend “the Examiner has not identified any express or implied teaching found in STEINBERG that would have even arguably been understood to have suggested what constitutes a ‘thorough scan’” nor “has the Examiner identified any express or implied teaching as to the ‘information associated’ with the networks that is transmitted ‘to populate 4 Appeal 2016-002820 Application 13/561,490 the registry database 124’” (App. Br. 14). Further, Appellants contend that the Examiner also has not identified any structure in Steinberg “that would have even arguably suggested that device 108 was capable of maintaining multiple radios active to search for different available networks and for transmitting over each these networks or a single network to the information system 120” {id. at 14, 15). We have considered all of Appellants’ arguments and evidence presented. However, we disagree with Appellants’ contentions regarding the Examiner’s rejections of the claims. We agree with the Examiner’s findings, and find no error with the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims would have been obvious over the combined teachings. As a preliminary matter of claim construction, we give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 111 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). While we interpret claims broadly but reasonably in light of the Specification, we nonetheless must not import limitations from the Specification into the claims. See Phillips v. AWHCorp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc). Although Appellants contend the Examiner fails to identity any teaching in Steinberg that “device 108 was capable of maintaining multiple radios active to search for different available networks and for transmitting over each these networks or a single network to the information system 120” (App. Br. 14), we note such contention is not commensurate in scope with the recited language of claim 1. In particular, claim 1 does not require any device that is “capable of maintaining multiple radios active” as Appellants contend {id.). Rather, claim 1 merely requires “acquisition device” intended to acquire “data transmitted from the mobile device that is related to at least 5 Appeal 2016-002820 Application 13/561,490 one of’ service coverage, quality or usage for the mobile device “in each of the multiple available networks” (claim 1, emphasis added). As the Examiner concludes, there is no claimed limitation of the “mobile device” as “actively using multiple radios” (Ans. 7). Furthermore, we note claim 1 does not provide any definition for the “acquisition device” other than the “acquisition device” is intended to acquire “data,” wherein the “data” is to be acquired “from the mobile device” and is “related to” at least one of service coverage, quality and usage for the mobile device (id.). In fact, claim 1 does not even define as to how the data can be “related to” the service coverage, quality or usage. Steinberg discloses an information processing system that receives network information associated with access networks (FF 1), including information received from a wireless device that it has observed about all potential access networks (FF 2). For example, the information processing system receives information associated with the mobile device’s network scans and incorporates the received results from the wireless device into the registry database (FF 4). We find no error with the Examiner’s finding that “[t]he wireless device [of Steinberg] would be equivalent to the Appellants’] claimed ‘mobile device’ and the information processing system would be equivalent to the Appellants’] claimed ‘acquisition device’” wherein “the wireless device of Steinberg is shown to be transmitting data to the information processing system (Ans. 6). Thus, although Appellants contend Steinberg’s wireless device 108 cannot “correspond to the recited acquisition device” (App. Br. 13), the Examiner is instead finding that Steinberg’s wireless 6 Appeal 2016-002820 Application 13/561,490 device corresponds to the claimed “mobile device” and relies on Steinberg’s information processing system as the recited “acquisition device” (Ans. 6). Here, we are not persuaded of error with the Examiner’s finding that Steinberg discloses the claimed “acquisition device” intended to acquire “data transmitted from the mobile device” (claim 1). Furthermore, in Steinberg, the information at the information processing system (acquisition device) is associated with networks near a wireless device (mobile device) based on the wireless device’s geographical location, and identifies bandwidth availability, Quality of Service factors, coverage capabilities relative to the device’s current location, and the like (FF 3). We agree with the Examiner’s finding that “Steinberg is able to gather network information . . . that a wireless device ‘has observed about all potential access networks’” (Ans. 5), wherein “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art would understand that [Steinberg’s] ‘thorough scan’ is to identify ‘potential target networks’ that the wireless device may access” (Ans. 7). Here, as the Examiner finds, “an example of. . . what information associated with the networks the registry database [of the acquisition device] is populated with . . . being Quality of Service factors associated with a network,” wherein “the ‘information associated’ is gathered from the ‘potential target networks’ and then stored in a populated registry database” because “the information used to populate the registry database includes bandwidth information and QoS factors” (Ans. 7). Given the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the claims, we agree with the Examiner that Steinberg’s data transmitted from the wireless device to be stored in the information processing system is “related to” at least one of coverage capability and QoS information in the available networks at the 7 Appeal 2016-002820 Application 13/561,490 global positioning location near the wireless device populated in the information processing system (FF 3). Thus, based on the broadest, reasonable interpretation of the claims, we are unpersuaded that the Examiner erred in finding that Steinberg discloses and suggests “data transmitted from the mobile device that is related to at least one of... service coverage for the mobile device. service quality for the mobile device.. .for the mobile device in each of the multiple available networks at the at least one global positioning location” (claim 1). Based on this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 over Steinberg and Rhemtulla. Appellants contends Steinberg and Rhemtulla do not disclose or suggest the contested limitations similarly recited in independent claims 10 and 19 by repeating the above contentions (App. Br. 19—35). For the same reasons addressed above, on this record, we also affirm the rejection of claims 10 and 19. Appellants do not provide substantive arguments for claims 2, 4—7, 11, 13—16, and 20 respectively depending from claims 1,10, and 19 (App. Br. 35—36), and thus, these claims fall therewith. Appellants further contend that Wieczorek and Dees fail to “even arguably teach the subject matter of at least independent claims 1 and 10 that has been shown above to be deficient in STEINBERG in view of RHEMTULLA” (App.Br. 37, 39). However, we find no deficiencies with the Examiner’s reliance on Steinberg and Rhemtulla in rejecting claims 1 and 10. Therefore, we also affirm the rejections of claims 3, and 12 over Steinberg, and Rhemtulla, in further view of Wieczorek; and claims 8, 9, 17, and 18 over Steinberg, and Rhemtulla, in further view of Dees. 8 Appeal 2016-002820 Application 13/561,490 V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). 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 9 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation