Ex Parte Kneckt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

14379321 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/379,321 08/18/2014
72165 7590 08/31/2018
BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD
ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT 004770
1100 13TH STREET
SUITE 1200
WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jarkko Kneckt
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.
004770.02335\US 1004
EXAMINER
CASTANEYRA, RICARDO H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2018 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):
PTO-72165@bannerwitcoff.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, MIKA KASSLIN, and ENG HWEE ONG
Appeal2018-002240
Application 14/379,321
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 10, 11, 17-24, 26, and 27. Claims
9, 12-16, 25, and 28-35 have been canceled. See Appeal Br. 9-14 (Claims
App'x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies
OY. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-002240
Application 14/379,321
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to "facilitating scanning for a
wireless network." Spec. 1:3--4. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as
follows:
1. A method comprising:
monitoring transmission of messages in a wireless
network;
determining that a transmission rate of messages is not
sufficient if the following conditions are true: detecting no
message within a minimum transmission time interval and
determining that a next target beacon transmission time is not
within a predefined time interval after the expiry of the minimum
transmission time interval; and
upon determining that the transmission rate of messages is
not sufficient, causing an access point of the wireless network to
transmit a scanning message.
References
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims:
Jeong et al. ("Jeong")
Ruuska
Rittle et al. ("Rittle")
Chhabra
US 2006/0111103 Al
US 2007 /0060067 Al
US 2007/0286136 Al
US 2008/0123558 Al
Rejections
May 25, 2006
Mar. 15, 2007
Dec. 13, 2007
May 29, 2008
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 27 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Rittle and Chhabra. Final Act. 5-24.
2
Appeal2018-002240
Application 14/379,321
Claims 3 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Rittle, Chhabra, and Jeong. Final
Act. 24--26.
Claims 6 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Rittle, Chhabra, and Ruuska. Final
Act. 26-29.
ANALYSIS
Appellants do not substantively argue the claims separately, but
instead rely on the same arguments for all claims. See Appeal Br. 4--7;
Reply Br. 2--4. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we select
independent claim 1 as the representative claim. Remaining claims 2-8, 10,
11, 17-24, 26, and 27 stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the
reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants'
Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-29; Ans. 2-34. We highlight and address
specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
First Contention
Appellants contend the combination of Rittle and Chhabra is
improper. Appeal Br. 4--6; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants argue the
combination is improper because "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art would
3
Appeal2018-002240
Application 14/379,321
have no motivation to modify Rittle by Chhabra." Appeal Br. 4. Appellants
argue:
The Rittle periodical advertisement message transm1ss10ns
sufficiently advertise or announce their presence and related
service information on the network, and there is no factual
evidence showing that transmitting extra advertisement
messages[, as taught by Chhabra,] (in addition to the periodical
advertisement messages the Rittle node already sends) would
improve Rittle in any aspects.
Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner
finds Rittle teaches that the period at which the second ad hoc interface is
turned on/off can vary based on the node's current application set or a
current operation mode of applications currently running on the node.
Ans. 27 ( citing Rittle ,r 51 ). The Examiner finds Chhabra teaches generating
and transmitting a message, such as a beacon or probe-request, if a message
(e.g., a probe response) is not received during the pre-TBTT (target beacon
transmission time) and the TBTT plus TBTT delay time frames. Ans. 29
(citing Chhabra ,r 62). We agree with the Examiner that "the combination of
Rittle in view of Chhabra results in managing or adjusting the time intervals
of Rittle' s node to transmit the subsequent messages, and not in transmitting
an extra message besides the periodical message as argued by the
Appellant[s]." Ans. 29 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner reasons "it
would have been obvious to one [ ofJ skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to modify the invention of Rittle, and have the features, as taught
by Chhabra, in order to discover services available from other stations
within the network." Ans. 32 (citing Chhabra ,r,r 13, 62). The Examiner's
findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the
4
Appeal2018-002240
Application 14/379,321
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the
skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,420,421 (2007). Appellants do not
present sufficient evidence to show that the resulting arrangement was
"uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or
"represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR,
550 U.S. at 418-19). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred.
Appellants further argue the combination is improper because
modifying Rittle with the teachings of Chhabra would change the principle
of operation of Rittle. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants argue:
[W]ith the alleged modification, since the prospective peer node
of the modified Rittle transmits extra advertisement messages in
addition to the periodical advertisement messages, the
prospective peer node of the modified Rittle must keep the power
ON for a longer time period. Such longer tum-on time would be
contrary to the Rittle goals to provide "energy-efficient
prospective peer discovery" and to "conserve power."
Rittle explicitly discloses that the provider node turns off its ad
hoc interface when the provider node determines that there is no
nearby client nodes (when the provider node does not receive a
response message from any client nodes), and one of ordinary
skill in the art would have had no reason to force the provider
node of Rittle to transmit another advertisement message, as does
Chhabra's station.
Appeal Br. 6 (citing Rittle Title; ,r,r 7, 24--25, 45, 48); see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellants argue "the alleged combination changes the principle of
operation of Rittle" because "the prospective peer provider node would no
5
Appeal2018-002240
Application 14/379,321
longer tum off its second ad hoc interface at the end of the second time
period a when the prospective peer node does not receive a response
message from any potential client nodes during the time period a .... "
Reply Br. 4 ( citing Rittle ,r 51 ).
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. "The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference ... Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCP A 1981 ). As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that the
combination of Rittle and Chhabra results in managing or adjusting the time
intervals of Rittle' s node to transmit the subsequent messages. Ans. 29.
One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the transmission of the
probe request upon determining that a message was not received during the
pre-TBTT and the TBTT plus TBTT delay time period, as taught by
Chhabra, would occur during Rittle's time interval a and would not replace
Rittle's time interval B during which the second ad hoc interface is turned
off, as argued by Appellants.
Second Contention
Appellants contend the combination of Rittle and Chhabra fails to
teach or suggest "upon determining that the transmission rate of messages is
not sufficient, causing an access point of the wireless network to transmit a
scanning message," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants argue
since Chhara's station that "sends a probe-request" is a client
node that is searching for "a peer ad-hoc station," rather than a
provider node, only the client node, rather than the provider
6
Appeal2018-002240
Application 14/379,321
node, of Rittle would have been be modified by Chhara's station
that "sends a probe-request." The alleged combination does not
have a provider node that may transmit another probe-request if
not receiving a response to an earlier probe request as alleged by
the Office.
Appeal Br. 7.
We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Chhabra teaches generating and transmitting a message, such
as a beacon or probe-request, if a message ( e.g., a probe response) is not
received during the pre-TB TT (target beacon transmission time) and the
TBTT plus TBTT delay time frames. Ans. 33 ( citing Chhabra ,r,r 54, 62).
We also agree with the Examiner that Chhabra teaches that the disclosed
method can be implemented in an access point ( e.g., a provider node). Id.
( citing Chhabra ,r 99). As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding the combination of Rittle and Chhabra teaches or suggests the
disputed limitation.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 1 and claims 2-8, 10, 11, 17-24, 26, and 27, which fall with
claim 1.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, 17-24, 26,
and 27 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
7