Ex Parte Morper et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 24, 201613502240 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 24, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation