Ex Parte Morper et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 24, 2016

13502240 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/502,240 07/06/2012
32294 7590 08/26/2016
Squire PB (NV A/DC Office)
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE
14THFLOOR
VIENNA, VA 22182-6212
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hans-Jochen Morper
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.
089229.00523 1074
EXAMINER
REDDIV ALAM, SRINIV ASAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/26/2016 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):
IPGENERAL TYC@SQUIREpb.COM
SONIA.WHITNEY@SQUIREpb.COM
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HANS-JOCHEN MORPER and
CHRISTIAN MARKWART
Appeal2015-003666
Application 13/502,240
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
Appeal2015-003666
Application 13/502,240
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application concerns "delay determination in
heterogeneous network environments." Spec. 1: 10-11. Claim 1 illustrates
the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of determining system performance parameters
of a network, the network being one of a plurality of
heterogeneous networks in a communication system, a first
network operator controlling a first network and controlling a
first node, a second network operator controlling a second
network, and the first node being located in the second network,
the method comprising the steps of:
the first node communicating with at least one other node;
the first node obtaining system-related information as a
result of this communication; and
the system-related information being used to derive the
system performance parameters of the second network,
wherein the first node comprises an access point.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-12, and 14--20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Lupper et al. (US 2003/0171112 Al; Sept. 11, 2003)
("Lupper") and Rune et al. (US 2010/0214955 Al; Aug. 26, 2010) ("Rune").
Claims 4 and 13 stand rejected stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lupper, Rune, and Nylander et al. (US
2010/0165862 Al; July 1, 2010) ("Nylander").
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites "a first network operator ... controlling a first node
... the first node being located in the second network ... wherein the first
2
Appeal2015-003666
Application 13/502,240
node comprises an access point." App. Br. 24. The Examiner found Lupper
teaches these limitations. See Final Act. 3--4; Ans. 19-20. In particular, the
Examiner found Lupper discloses a GSM network ("a first network
operator"), a wireless local area network referred to as "W-LAN" or
"(W-)LAN" ("a second network operator"), and a radio access point ("a first
node") located in the W-LAN. See Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner found
Lupper teaches that the GSM network controls the radio access point located
in the W-LAN because Lupper discloses an embodiment that
allow[ s] operators of scattered local area data networks
(W-)LAN and operators of second networks GSM using local
area networks (W-)LAN authenticatable and chargeable wireless
subscriber access using means in the local area network or using
means in the second network.
Lupper i1 7 5; Final Act. 3 (citing Lupper i1 7 5).
Appellants contend the Examiner's finding that Lupper teaches "a first
network operator ... controlling a first node ... the first node being located
in the second network ... wherein the first node comprises an access point"
is erroneous. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3--4. According to Appellants, the
cited portions of Lupper disclose allowing wireless subscriber access, not a
GSM operator controlling the radio access point in the W-LAN as found by
the Examiner. See App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 3--4.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. As noted above, the cited
paragraph of Lupper discloses an embodiment in which operators of W-
LAN and GSM networks may obtain "authenticatable and chargeable
wireless subscriber access using means in the local area network [ (W-)LAN]
or using means in the second network [GSM]." Lupper i175. This
disclosure, without more, does not teach or suggest that the GSM network
controls the radios access point as found by the Examiner. The cited
3
Appeal2015-003666
Application 13/502,240
embodiment performs authentication and billing services relating to a W-
LAN network by, in some cases, accessing data stored in a GSM network.
See id. i-fi-175-84. The only discussion of the radio access point with respect
to this embodiment concerns a host computer in the W-LAN network
accessing the radio access point. See id. i1 7 6; see also id. Fig 3. Moreover,
this discussion makes no mention of the radio access point playing a role in
the disclosed authentication and billing services. Given the lack of evidence
in the reference, the Examiner has not adequately explained why these
services, even if performed by the W-LAN network on behalf of the GSM
network, would teach or suggest that the GSM network controls the radio
access point.
Based on this record, we agree with Appellants that one of ordinary
skill in the art would not understand Lupper's mention of "using means in
the local area network or using means in the second network" to teach or
suggest that the GSM network controls the radio access point. We therefore
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and claims 2-15, which
depend from claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claims 16-20, as the Examiner's rejection of these claims suffers from a
similar deficiency.
DECISION
We reverse the rejections of claims 1-20.
REVERSED
4