Ex Parte HusDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 29, 201411576751 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 29, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte OLIVIER J-M. HUS ____________ Appeal 2012-005751 Application 11/576,751 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–37, which are all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (App. Br. 3). Appeal 2012-005751 Application 11/576,751 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellant’s invention relates to a radio communications gateway between a mobile telecommunications network and a Bluetooth® network (see Spec. 1:5–8). Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows: 1. A radio communications gateway comprising: a source receiver for receiving a source radio signal over a source communications network; a peer transmitter for transmitting a peer radio signal over a peer communications network; and an interface for passing content represented by the source radio signal from the source receiver to the peer transmitter for representation in the peer radio signal, wherein the source radio signal includes a source quality of service indicator specifying signal quality information in the source communications network and the peer transmitter transmits a representation of the indicator with the content in the peer radio signal, and wherein the gateway adapts communications in the source communications network based on a change in signal quality in the peer communications network. References The Examiner relied on the following prior art references in rejecting the appealed claims: Petrovic US 2005/0220040 A1 Oct. 6, 2005 Herrmann US 2006/0092869 A1 May 4, 2006 Jouppi US 7,383,048 B2 June 3, 2008 Appeal 2012-005751 Application 11/576,751 3 3G and Bluetooth® standards documents, Prior Art standards documents described in Appellant’s Application relating to 3G and Bluetooth® networks (Spec. pp. 10–12). Admitted Prior Art, Figure 3 of Appellant’s Application. Rejections The Examiner rejected claims 1, 6–17, 21, 22, 26–32, 36, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over 3G and Bluetooth® standards documents, Jouppi, in view of either Petrovic or Herrmann (Ans. 5–14), and further added the Admitted Prior Art to reject claims 2–5, 18–20, 23–25, and 33–35 (Ans. 14–16). Issues on Appeal Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief present us with the following issues: 1. Does Jouppi relate to specifying a source quality of service indicator recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 10–12)? 2. Has the Examiner provided proper rationale for the proposed combination (App. Br. 12)? ANALYSIS With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends Jouppi teaches data packets transmission using a specific quality of service (QoS) treatment based on a QoS profile and an associated QoS identifier, which are used to establish a baseline to achieve a certain level of quality for channel setup (App. Br. 10). Appellant asserts that the QoS profile and an associated QoS identifier disclosed in Jouppi are different from the recited “a source quality of service indicator specifying signal quality information in the source Appeal 2012-005751 Application 11/576,751 4 communications network” (id.). Additionally, Appellant contends the combination does not teach or suggest the recited “indicator specifying signal quality information” because the QoS profile and QoS identifier of Jouppi are not the same as the signal quality indicators discussed in the 3G and Bluetooth® standards documents (App. Br. 11). The Examiner responds by explaining that the quality of service indicators are described in 3G and Bluetooth® standards documents for establishing data rates in each network (Ans. 17 (citing Spec. 12)). As further pointed out by the Examiner (id.), Jouppi was relied on for suggesting to one of ordinary skill in the art how to pass on quality of service information between networks. We agree with the Examiner’s reasoning. Contrary to Appellant’s argument against the proposed combination based on the disclosure that few useful mechanisms for passing signal quality information between two networks existed (Reply Br. 3–4 (citing Spec. 2:8–13)), we understand such disclosure to be a suggestion that some mechanisms, in contrast to none, were available. In fact, Jouppi was relied on to show transmission of quality of service information between networks. We also observe that Jouppi discusses exchanging data with a peer device in a 3G network (col. 1, ll. 16– 22) as well as a wireless local area network (LAN) or “local media pipes, e.g. Bluetooth®” (col. 7, ll. 25–34). Next, Appellant contends the proposed combination is improper because the Examiner’s position is based on conclusory statements (App. Br. 12). In view of the Examiner’s findings regarding Jouppi discussed above, we are unpersuaded by Appellant’s contentions that Jouppi does not suggest including a source quality of service indicator in the radio signal and transmitting the indicator with the content in the peer radio signal. As Appeal 2012-005751 Application 11/576,751 5 specified by the Examiner (Ans. 17), the proposed combination as modified by Petrovic or Herrmann suggests the advantages of adjusting data rates in a source network according to the conditions in a peer network (see also Ans. 9). Regarding claim 11, Appellant argues that the combination of the references fails to teach or suggest receiving a return peer radio signal that includes a peer quality of service indicator because Jouppi relates to a source communications network (App. Br. 16–18). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s contentions. We agree with the Examiner’s findings and conclusion and adopt them as our own (see Ans. 11–12, 18–19). As explained by the Examiner (Ans. 18), 3G and Bluetooth® standards documents describe monitoring the signal strength of the peer network or the Bluetooth® network by using the transmitted data for determining the data rate between devices. We further agree with the Examiner’s description of the features of Jouppi and Petrovic/Herrmann, and agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the ordinary skilled artisan would have combined the cited references, consistent with the guidelines stated in KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007) (Ans. 9–12, 19). As discussed above, Appellant’s arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred, and we therefore sustain the Examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 11, as well as the remaining claims not argued with sufficient specificity (App. Br. 14–15, 19). Appeal 2012-005751 Application 11/576,751 6 DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–37 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED tj Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation