Ex Parte Jeong et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 14, 201711868281 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2017) 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. 11/868,281 10/05/2007 Moo Ryong Jeong M-16795 US 1726 32605 7590 Haynes and Boone, LLP IP Section 2323 Victory Avenue SUITE 700 Dallas, TX 75219 11/16/2017 EXAMINER ONAMUTI, GBEMILEKE J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 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): ipdocketing@haynesboone.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MOO RYONG JEONG, FUJIO WATANABE, and HIROSHI INAMURA Appeal 2015-006271 Application 11/868,2811 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS-MERCADER, HUNG H. BUI, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. BUI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s Final Office Action rejecting claims 1—5, 9, and 12—25,2 which are all the claims pending on appeal. Claims 6—8, 10, and 11 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.3 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is NTT DOCOMO Inc. App. Br. 2. 2 Claim 20 has been conditionally allowed if rewritten in independent form. Final Act. 2. 3 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed February 9, 2015 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed June 5, 2015 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed April 7, 2015 (“Ans.”); Final Office Action mailed July 9, 2014 (“Final Act.”); and original Specification filed October 5, 2007 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2015-006271 Application 11/868,281 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention relates to “proactive load management in a WLAN [wireless local network] using such metrics as per-class station count or per-class traffic specification.” Spec. 1:12—14; Abstract. In particular, Appellants’ invention “provides a load management method which help select an AP [access point] and results in an improvement in the grade of service (GoS) of the overall system.” Spec. 12:5—8. Claims 1 and 22 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claimed subject matter, as reproduced with disputed limitations emphasized below: 1. At an access point of a wireless network, a method for proactively managing the load of the wireless network, comprising: [1] maintaining a load metric for wireless stations corresponding to expected traffic generation information provided by the wireless stations for a plurality of user priorities, wherein expected traffic generation information includes information for traffic that is not currently active but is expected to be active subsequently, [2] receiving a message from a wireless station requesting association, the message comprising additional traffic generation information, the additional traffic generation information identifying at least one of the user priorities in which the requesting wireless station expects to generate traffic, [3] determining whether the AP should grant the association request from the requesting wireless station based on the load metric for the identified at least one user priority; [4] responsive to a determination that the association request should be granted, associating the requesting wireless station; and 2 Appeal 2015-006271 Application 11/868,281 [5] responsive to a determination that the association request should be refused, denying the association request from the requesting wireless station. App. Br. 9 (Claims App.) (bracketing added). Examiner’s Rejections and References (1) Claims 1—3, 5, 9, 13—17, and 22—25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seo et al. (US 6,469,993 Bl; issued Oct. 22, 2002) and Lu (US 2005/0094558 Al; published May 5, 2005). Final Act. 3-14. (2) Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seo, Lu, and Kostic et al. (US 7,406,319 B2; issued July 29,2008). Final Act. 14-15. (3) Claims 18, 19, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seo, Lu, and Mitra et al. (US 7,123,588 B2; issued Oct. 17,2006). Final Act. 15—16. (4) Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Seo, Lu, and Yumoto et al. (US 8,095,681 B2; issued Jan. 10,2012). Final Act. 16-17. Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the cited prior art (including Seo) teaches or suggests the disputed limitations: [1] “maintaining a load metric for wireless stations corresponding to expected traffic generation information . . . 3 Appeal 2015-006271 Application 11/868,281 includes information for traffic that is not currently active but is expected to be active subsequently;” and [2] “receiving a message from a wireless station requesting association, the message comprising additional traffic generation information . . . identifying at least one of the user priorities in which the requesting wireless station expects to generate traffic,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 22. App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 5—8 (emphasis added). ANALYSIS In support of the obviousness rejection, the Examiner finds the combination of Seo and Lu teaches all limitations of independent claims 1 and 22. Final Act. 3—6, 10—13. For example, the Examiner finds Seo teaches a method for managing a load at an access point (AP) in a wireless network, including mostly steps [1] and [2] of claim 1. Id. at 3^4 (citing Seo 1:65—2:7, 4:19-65). The Examiner then relies on Lu for teaching the remaining steps [3]—[5] of claim 1 in the context of utilizing traffic prediction (i.e., expected traffic or traffic that is not currently active but is expected to be active subsequently) for user admission (i.e., to decide to accept, reject, or grant access) in order to support the conclusion of obviousness. Id. at 4—6 (citing Lu 15, 29, 34). Appellants do not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Lu or the Examiner’s rationale to combine Seo and Lu. Instead, Appellants contend the cited prior art, including Seo and Lu, does not teach or suggest steps [1] and [2] of claim 1 and similar limitations recited in claim 22, including: 4 Appeal 2015-006271 Application 11/868,281 [1] “maintaining a load metric for wireless stations corresponding to expected traffic generation information . . . includes information for traffic that is not currently active but is expected to be active subsequently;” and [2] “receiving a message from a wireless station requesting association, the message comprising additional traffic generation information . . . identifying at least one of the user priorities in which the requesting wireless station expects to generate traffic” App. Br. 4—7; Reply Br. 5—8 (emphasis added). In particular, Appellants argue: (1) “the examiner has repeatedly failed to appreciate the difference between [a] proactive and [b] reactive load management” i.e., proactive load management as recited in Appellants’ claim 1 takes into consideration not only existing load but also the potential load—activity from users not currently active but that may be active in the future, whereas Seo’s reactive load management does not (App. Br. 4—5); (2) Seo’s access point (AP) “calculates ‘a dynamic priority’” but “the dynamic priority of Seo relates to generated traffic [,] and not the expected traffic” (id. at 5); (3) Seo’s AP “monitors a traffic load congestion” but “[t]his is not a proactive monitoring as there is no suggestion or teaching in Seo that such monitoring relates to expected traffic ‘that is not currently active but is expected to be active subsequently’ as required by claim” (id. at 5—6); and (4) Lu does not teach or suggest “maintaining a load metric for wireless stations corresponding to expected traffic generation information provided by the wireless stations for a plurality of user priorities''’ as required by claim 1 (id. at 6). App. Br. 4—6 (emphases added). 5 Appeal 2015-006271 Application 11/868,281 In the reply, Appellants allege the Examiner has mischaracterized the teachings of Seo and Lu. For example, Appellants argue that (1) “Seo is concerned with the amount of data traffic, not its categorization into user priorities” and (2) Seo’s reference to “dynamic priority group” is not related to Appellants’ claimed “user priority” as the term “user priority” is used in IEEE 802.11(e) protocol and recited in claim 1. Reply Br. 5—7. According to Appellants, the term “user priority” as defined by IEEE 802.11(e) protocol refers to various types of traffic categories: For example, user priorities 3-5 relate to various video traffic categories where user priorities 6 and 7 relate to voice traffic. Examples of these user priorities are shown in Table 1 starting on page 13 of the specification, ranging from a user priority 0 (UP 0) to a UP 7. For example, a mobile device may wish to associate with an AP that currently at capacity with a certain class of user priority traffic (e.g., data) but is not at capacity with another type of user priority traffic such as voice traffic. Id. at 5 (citing Spec. 13, TABLE 1). Appellants also argue (3): “Lu is just like Seo: the predicted traffic in Lu is based on the current existing traffic. There is not a hint of a suggestion in Lu that Lu’s predicted traffic “includes information for traffic that is not currently active but is expected to be active subsequently” for a plurality of user priorities,” as recited in claim 1; and, as such, (4) Lu “provides no teaching or suggestion for claimed limitation of a Toad metric for wireless stations corresponding to expected traffic generation provided by the wireless stations for a plurality of user priorities’” and “bases his traffic prediction reactively in that it is based on existing traffic that does not include ‘traffic 6 Appeal 2015-006271 Application 11/868,281 that is not currently active but is expected to be active subsequently’ as required by independent claims 1 and 22.” Id. at 7—8. We do not find Appellants’ arguments persuasive to justify a reversal of the Examiner’s rejection. In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011). As correctly recognized by the Examiner, Fu teaches “a system and method for predicting traffic in a WEAN, particularly WFANs compliant with one or more of the family of standards known as 802.11” Fu 12. According to Fu, “traffic prediction for WFANs” is used by an access point (AP) and a wireless transmit/receive unit (WTRU) (known as mobile unit) to reduce “the chance of congestion and enhance quality of service (QoS).” Fu 114. This way “the AP can make more intelligent decisions on user admission” and “can also increase the efficiency of bandwidth utilization and reduce collisions.” Fu 116. Contrary to Appellants’ arguments, Fu describes that: traffic prediction can advantageously be used by an AP to control the flow of wireless communications. Traffic prediction is the predicted traffic volume from WTRUs. Traffic volume includes the load, traffic characteristics, traffic duration, etc. One example of load levels is to categorize services in one of three categories: high, medium, low. Traffic characteristics can be selected, for example, as between bursty or constant. Traffic duration can be designated, for example, as between a long or a short amount of time. As an example at the application layer, an on-line gaming user will have a higher traffic volume than a user checking email periodically. However, different computer games may have different data demand characteristics. One may require a relatively continual stream of information, such as video streaming[.] Another may require relatively large amounts of data to be sporadically communicated, i.e. a bursty data flow. A user intending to play a video streaming on-line game is able to 7 Appeal 2015-006271 Application 11/868,281 provide a traffic prediction of high, continuous traffic. A user intending to check e-mail is able to provide a traffic prediction of low, bursty traffic. Traffic prediction can be obtained by multiple ways among different communication layers. During transmission, a WTRU can measure the transmit throughput as total number of frames per second, and use it as traffic prediction for the following period of time. When a user launches an application, the traffic volume associated with this application (e.g., web browsing, streaming videos, etc.) can be used as traffic prediction. Accordingly, a processing unit of a WTRU is preferably configured to generate traffic prediction information based on such factors in a form that can be embedded in transmitted communication frames for detection by an AP. Lu 27—29 (emphasis added). In other words, Lu’s traffic prediction (1) is proactive; (2) is based on the predicted traffic volume from WTRUs associated with a certain application (e.g., web browsing, emailing, audio or video streaming); (3) such predicted traffic volume including: (i) traffic load (i.e., load levels to categorize services in one of categories: high, medium, low), (ii) traffic characteristics, (iii) traffic duration, etc.; and, as such, (3) Lu’s predicted traffic, by definition, “includes information for traffic that is not currently active but is expected to be active subsequently,” as recited in claim 1. Ans. 18—19 (citing Lu 129). We acknowledge that Lu does not explicitly use the term “user priorities.” However, we find an ordinarily skilled artisan would understand that the term “user priorities” simply refer to different categories of services, such as traffic for voice service, video service, game service, web browsing service, and email service, as described paragraphs 28—29 of Lu, and similarly described in Appellants’ Specification, page 19 and lines 12—14 8 Appeal 2015-006271 Application 11/868,281 and TABLE 3 (Classification by service). In addition, we also find an ordinarily skilled artisan would have sufficient technical knowledge, based on the teachings of Lu4 alone, especially the load metric, i.e., load levels to categorize three different types of services, including: high, medium, low (see Lu 127), and found it obvious to “maintain a load metric for expected traffic from a plurality of associated wireless stations [i.e., WRTUs] in each of a plurality of user priorities” at an access point (AP) in order to “make an informed decision with predicted traffic information.” See Lu 27—30. To the extent applicable, Seo also teaches “maintaining a load metric [e.g., traffic load] for wireless stations corresponding to expected traffic generation information,” as recited in claim 1. Lor the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated Examiner error. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claims 1 and 22 and their respective dependent claims 2, 3, 5, 9, 13—17, and 23—25, which Appellants do not argue separately. App. Br. 7. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s remaining obviousness rejection, which include: (1) dependent claim 4 based on Seo, Lu, and Kostic; (2) dependent claims 18, 19, and 21 based on Seo, Lu, and Mitra; and (3) dependent claim 12 based on Seo, Lu, and Yumoto. 4 Appellants’ invention can be obvious in light of a single prior art reference if it would have been obvious to modify that reference to arrive at the invention. See, e.g., Takeda Chem. Indus., Ltd. v. Alphapharm Pty, Ltd., 492 F.3d 1350, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2007); SIBIA Neurosciences, Inc. v. Cadus Pharm. Corp., 225 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Moreover, where a rejection is based on a combination of references (Seo and Lu), the order in which prior art references are cited to Appellants is of no significance, but merely a matter of exposition. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491, 496 (CCPA 1961) (cited in In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). 9 Appeal 2015-006271 Application 11/868,281 CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1—5, 9, and 12—25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—5, 9, and 12—25 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 10 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation