Ex Parte Kashikar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 16, 2016

12845646 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 16, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/845,646 07/28/2010
15757 7590 02/18/2016
Qualcomm /Norton Rose Fulbright US LLP
2200 Ross A venue
Suite 3600
Dallas, TX 75201-7932
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Anand Kashikar
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
82589447 1384
EXAMINER
DONADO, FRANKE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/18/2016 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
doipdocket@nortonrosefulbright.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ANAND KASHIKAR and NITIN KUMAR
Appeal2014-004037
Application 12/845,646
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and SCOTT E. BAIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL 1
Appellants2 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
final rejection of claims 1, 4--15 and 19-20. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to providing enhanced public land
mobile network (PLMN) search in mobile devices. See Abstract. Claims 1,
1 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief dated August 1, 2013
("App. Br."); Examiner's Answer dated November 25, 2013 ("Ans."); and
Final Office Action dated March 11, 2013 ("Final Act.").
2 The Appeal Brief identifies assignee Hewlett-Packard Development
Company, L.P. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2014-004037
Application 12/845,646
7, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative (disputed limitations
shown in italics):
1. A system to send and receive wireless communications,
compnsmg:
a mobile network carrier to:
receive a request from a mobile device to suspend a data
connection between the mobile device and the mobile network carrier
while the mobile device performs a manual public land mobile
network (PLMN) search, the request to suspend instructing the mobile
carrier network to suspend transmission of packets to the mobile
device until selection of a new network by a user,
suspend the transmission of the packets to the mobile device via
the data connection in response to the request to suspend, while
maintaining the data connection with the mobile device,
receive a resume data request from the mobile device when the
user reselects the mobile carrier network as the new network, and
resume the data connection with the mobile device in response
to the resume data request; and
a buffer to:
store data packets, while the data connection is suspended,
from the data connection to be sent to the mobile device, and
transmit, in response to receiving the resume data request, the
stored data packets to the mobile device when the user reselects the
mobile network carrier as the new network.
App. Br. 18 (emphasis added).
2
Appeal2014-004037
Application 12/845,646
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Gilchrist
Zhang
Somasundaram
us 5,745,695
US 2007 /0036120 Al
US 2009/0239533 Al
THE REJECTIONS
Apr. 28, 1998
Feb. 15,2007
Sep.24,2009
Claims 1, 4, 6-11, 13-15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Somasundaram and Gilchrist. Final Act. 3-10.
Claims 5, 12, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Somasundaram, Gilchrist and Zhang. Final Act. 10-12.3
ANALYSIS
On this record, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner's
rejection of the claims on appeal. We agree with the Examiner that the
claims on appeal are obvious over the cited combination of references, and
we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth in the obviousness
rejections from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer.
We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants
actually raised in their Brief. Any other arguments which Appellants could
have made but chose not to make in the Brief are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We provide the following explanation to
highlight and address specific arguments.
3 All other claims in the Application (claims 2-3, 16-18, and 21) have been
cancelled. Final Act. 2.
3
Appeal2014-004037
Application 12/845,646
CLAIM 1
Appellants present two arguments on appeal, both focused on claim 1
and the Examiner's findings with respect to the data buffer disclosed in
Gilchrist. 4
Appellants first argue that Gilchrist, while disclosing the buffering of
data packets in a mobile communication system during a "suspend" state,
does not teach that the buffered packets are "transmit[ted] ... to the mobile
device" as required in claim 1. App. Br. 14. We disagree. As found by the
Examiner (Ans. 4), Gilchrist discloses a mobile communications system that
may enter a "suspend" state when, for example, the mobile station "has
established GPRS data service and wishes to leave GPRS temporarily and
initiate a . . . non-GPRS service" that cannot be operated in parallel with
GPRS. Gilchrist col. 2, 11. 49-52. "While in this [suspended] state,"
Gilchrist further describes, "arriving data is either buffered or discarded
.... Upon the resumption of GPRS, data transfer ... [is] continued as
before the suspension." Gilchrist col. 2, 11. 58-63 (emphasis added). The
Examiner thus found, and we agree, that Gilchrist's description of temporary
buffering as an alternative to discarding data teaches buffered packets
"transmit[ted] ... to the mobile device."
Moreover, the Examiner asserts that "buffers and their use [were] well
known in the art at the time the invention was made," and buffering data in a
mobile system "without ever resending [transmitting] it would not make any
sense" to one of ordinary skill. Ans. 5---6. In the Final Office Action, the
4 Appellants do not dispute the Examiner's description of the teachings of
Somasundaram and Zhang, nor the rationale of combining any of the cited
prior art references.
4
Appeal2014-004037
Application 12/845,646
Examiner asserted that "[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention to ... include this [buffer and
transmit] feature for the benefit of transmission efficiency." Final Act. 4.
Appellants do not address or contest these assertions and the Examiner's
conclusion that Gilchrist teaches "a buffer to ... transmit ... the stored data
packets to the mobile device," as recited in claim 1.
Appellants next argue that Gilchrist does not teach a buff er to
transmit the stored data to a mobile device "when the user reselects the
mobile carrier as the new network," as required in claim 1. App. Br. 15.
Specifically, Appellants argue that "[ n ]owhere does Gilchrist mention a user
selecting or reselecting the mobile network carrier." Id. The Examiner
found, and we agree, that Gilchrist teaches these elements. See Ans. 4--5.
Gilchrist discloses a GPRS carrier reselected after a temporary suspension of
GPRS services, as a result of the mobile station "sending a resume
message." Gilchrist col. 8, 11. 7-9; see also id. at col. 3, 11. 24--26. Sending
the resume message "will resume GPRS" and "data transfer and GPRS
specific system signalling procedures are continued as before the
suspension." Id. at col. 2, 11. 61---63; col. 8, line 8. While Appellants state
that "Gilchrist resuming GPRS operation is not equivalent to reselecting the
mobile network carrier as taught in claim 1," Appellants provide no support
or explanation for this statement. App. Br. 15.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection of claim 1.
THE REMAINING CLAIMS (4--15, 19-20)
Appellants do not argue the patentability of the remaining claims
separately, asserting that the remaining claims are patentable for "reasons
5
Appeal2014-004037
Application 12/845,646
analogous to those presented with respect to claim 1." App. Br. 15. We
therefore also sustain the rejection of the remaining claims 4--15 and 19-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 4, 6-11, 13-15, and 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Somasundaram and Gilchrist is
AFFIRMED.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 5, 12, and 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Somasundaram, Gilchrist and Zhang 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)(l). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv) (2013).
AFFIRMED
6