Ex Parte Kneckt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 5, 2016

12287644 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 5, 2016)

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.
12/287,644 10/10/2008 Jarkko Kneckt 859.0140.U1(US) 9706
10948 7590 12/07/2016
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
EXAMINER
ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/07/2016 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):
USPTO@hspatent.com
Nokia. IPR @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JARKKO KNECKT, JANNE MARIN, and MIKA KASSLIN
Appeal 2016-000052
Application 12/287,644
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1—6, 9-13, 16—21, 24—26, 29-32, 34—38, 40, and 41. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000052
Application 12/287,644
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention “relate[s] generally to
wireless communication systems, methods, devices and computer program
products and, more specifically, relate[s] to power management techniques
therefore.” Spec. 12.2 A “device in a wireless network” may have a
“plurality of power saving modes,” and if “[i]t is determined that the device
is using one of the power saving modes on a peer-specific link,... a
message is transmitted to the peer over the link that includes an indication of
the state.” Abstract. The Specification notes that “embodiments of the
invention provide improved power management techniques for use, e.g., in
WLAN ad hoc networks, WLAN mesh networks or other wireless
networks.” Spec. 1 38.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the subject matter of the claims
under consideration and reads as follows, with italics indicating the
limitations at issue in claim 1:
1. A method comprising:
determining that a device in a wireless network is using a
first power management mode on a peer-specific link and a
second power management mode on another link, wherein both
of the first power management mode and the second power
management mode allow awake periods; and
2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the
Specification, filed October 10, 2008; “Final Act.” for the Final Office
Action, mailed September 29, 2014; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed
April 9, 2015; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed July 9, 2015; and
“Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed September 14, 2015.
2
Appeal 2016-000052
Application 12/287,644
transmitting a message to another device over the peer-
specific link comprising an indication that the device is using
the first power management mode on the peer-specific link.
App. Br. 16 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Odman
Romans
Jan
Lu et al. (“Lu”)
Conner et al. (“Conner”)
Maki
US 2003/0137993 Al
US 6,665,520 B2
US 2007/0104145 Al
US 7,224,704 B2
US 7,702,352 B2
US 7,912,943 B2
The Rejections on Appeal
July 24, 2003
Dec. 16, 2003
May 10, 2007
May 29, 2007
Apr. 20, 2010
(filed May 13, 2005)
Mar. 22, 2011
(filed Sept. 22, 2006)
Claims 1—4, 9, 10, 16—19, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Jan, Romans, and Odman. Final Act. 4—8;
App. Br. 2.
Claims 5 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jan, Romans, Odman, and Lu. Final Act. 8—9; App. Br. 2.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Jan, Romans, Odman, Lu, and Maki. Final Act. 9-10; App. Br. 2.
Claims 11—13, 25, 26, 29-31, 35—37, 40, and 41 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Jan, Romans, Odman, and Conner.
Final Act. 10—14; App. Br. 2.
3
Appeal 2016-000052
Application 12/287,644
Claims 32 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jan, Romans, Odman, Conner, and Lu. Final Act. 14—16;
App. Br. 3.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jan, Romans, Odman, Lu, and Maki. Final Act. 16; App. Br. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—6, 9-13, 16—21, 24—26,
29-32, 34—38, 40, and 41 in light of Appellants’ arguments that the
Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we disagree with
Appellants’ assertions regarding error by the Examiner. We adopt the
Examiner’s findings in the Final Office Action and Answer and add the
following primarily for emphasis.
The Rejections of Claims 1, 16, 29,
35, and 41 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Power Management Modes that “Allow Awake Periods”
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because
Jan does not teach “using a first power management mode on a peer-specific
link and a second power management mode on another link, wherein both of
the first power management mode and the second power management mode
allow awake periods,” as recited in claim 1. See App. Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 4—
7.
Appellants admit, however, that Jan teaches that a wireless device
may maintain a first link and a second link simultaneously. App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 6; see Jan 136. Appellants also admit that Jan teaches “two
power management modes - suspended and awake.” Reply Br. 6.
According to Appellants, Jan “teaches putting one station into a suspended
4
Appeal 2016-000052
Application 12/287,644
mode and bringing another station out of the suspended mode.” App. Br. 9.
Appellants explain that in Jan a wireless device “suspends a station,
performs various activities, wakes the station up, communicates, comes
within range of another station, [and] suspends the first station . . . Reply
Br. 6.
Appellants seek to distinguish Jan by asserting that (1) “a link [in Jan]
can be either ‘suspended’ or ‘used for transmission’” and (2) a “suspended
link cannot be used for transmission.” App. Br. 7—8. Appellants then assert
that Jan does not teach “a suspended power management mode which allows
awake periods.” Id. at 8; see id. at 9. Appellants similarly assert that Jan’s
suspended and awake power management modes “do not both allow awake
periods.” Reply Br. 6.
Appellants’ arguments have not persuaded us that the Examiner erred.
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Jan teaches (1) “simultaneously
establishing [a] plurality of links to the plurality of wireless stations”;
(2) “maintain[ing] the first link and second link simultaneously”;
(3) a power-saving or suspended mode for a link; and (4) a wake-up or
active mode for a link. Ans. 3 (citing Jan Abstract, H 11, 34—36, Fig. 4);
see Final Act. 4 (citing Jan || 35—36). Jan explains that a radio signal
strength indicator “detect[s] the intensity of the wireless network signal. . .
and thereby determines whether the first link is suspended and the second
link is used for transmission, or if the second link is suspended and the first
link is used for data transmission.” Jan 136; see App. Br. 8. Consequently,
Jan teaches that each of the simultaneously maintained first and second links
uses suspended and awake power management modes. Ans. 3; see Final
Act. 4. Jan’s suspended and awake modes for each of the first and second
5
Appeal 2016-000052
Application 12/287,644
links satisfy claim 1 ’s requirement that both of the first and second modes
“allow awake periods.” See Final Act. 4. Although the Examiner refers to a
power-saving or suspended mode as “a first power management mode” and
a wake-up or active mode as a “second power management mode,” those
references appear to relate to the chronological sequence of modes for the
“first wireless device” that Jan discusses as an example. See Ans. 3; Jan
1134-35.
Appellants’ arguments rest on the premise that claim 1 encompasses
only a power-saving or suspended mode with multiple suspended levels,
e.g., light sleep and deep sleep. See App. Br. 7—9; Reply Br. 4—7. Claim 1,
however, reasonably encompasses a power-saving or suspended mode with
only one suspended level (and a full power mode). App. Br. 16 (Claims
App.). Claim 2 illustrates this because claim 2 depends from claim 1 and
expressly recites that “the first power management mode is one of a full
power mode . . . and a power saving mode.” Id. (emphasis added). The
“indefinite article ‘a’ or ‘an’ in patent parlance carries the meaning of ‘one
or more’ in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase
‘comprising.’” KCJCorp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356
(Fed. Cir. 2000). Consistent with this, the Specification describes multiple
power-saving modes as optional. Spec. 172. In short, Appellants’
arguments are not commensurate in scope with claim 1.
Appellants argue that “Odman does not modify the combination of
Jan and Romans to achieve a combination of first and second power
management modes” that both “allow awake periods.” App. Br. 9. As
explained above, however, Jan teaches that combination. See Ans. 3; see
also Final Act. 4. The final rejection rests on Odman’s disclosure that
6
Appeal 2016-000052
Application 12/287,644
“messages are transmitted on a peer-specific link.” Final Act. 5 (citing
Odman 110). Appellants do not dispute that Odman includes that
disclosure. App. Br. 9.
Summary for Claim 1
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants’ arguments have not
persuaded us that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 for obviousness
based on Jan, Romans, and Odman. Hence, we sustain the rejection of
claim 1.
Claims 16, 29,35, and 41
Appellants state that independent “[cjlaim 16 is an apparatus claim
addressing subject matter similar to that of claim 1 . . . .” App. Br. 10.
Appellants also state that independent “[cjlaims 29, 35, and 41, are,
respectively, apparatus, computer readable medium, and means plus function
claims addressing subject matter similar to that of claim 1 . . . .” Id. at 13.
Appellants do not make any separate patentability arguments for claims 16,
29, 35, and 41. Id. at 10, 13; Reply Br. 4—7. Because Appellants do not
argue claims 16, 29, 35, and 41 separately, they stand or fall with claim 1.
See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence, we sustain the rejections of
claims 16, 29, 35, and 41.
The Rejections of Claims 2—6, 9—13, 17—21, 24—26,
30—32, 34, 36—38, and 40 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Appellants dispute the rejections of dependent claims 2—6, 9-13, 17—
21, 24—26, 30-32, 34, 36—38, and 40. App. Br. 5—6, 9-14; Reply Br. 3^4.
At most, however, Appellants point out what a dependent claim recites
without substantively discussing the references or explaining how the
dependent claim distinguishes over the references. App. Br. 10—14.
7
Appeal 2016-000052
Application 12/287,644
“A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be
considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.” 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv); see In reLovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356—57 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Because Appellants do not argue the dependent claims separately, they stand
or fall with the independent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Hence,
we sustain the rejections of claims 2—6, 9-13, 17—21, 24—26, 30-32, 34, 36—
38, and 40.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—6, 9—13, 16—21,
24—26, 29-32, 34—38, 40, and 41.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8