Ex Parte Rantanen et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 28, 201814366195 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/366,195 06/17/2014 146446 7590 07/02/2018 Dinsmore & Shohl LLP 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 610 Washington, DC 20004 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Tommi Rantanen 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. 114033-1704/PRAG76990PA 6016 EXAMINER GHOWRW AL, OMAR J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/02/2018 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): dcipdocket@dinsmore.com denise.suter@dinsmore.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte TOMMI RANTANEN, MIKKO TASA, VILLE LEV A, ANS SI NIEMI, and MARKKU ALA-V ANNESLUOMA Appeal2017-002150 Application 14/3 66, 195 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JASON J. CHUNG, SHARON PENICK, and MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10-16, 18, 20, and 22-24. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION The invention is directed "to the field of radio communications and, particularly, to managing network connectivity in a wireless apparatus." 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies Oy of Espoo, Finland. App. Br. 3. 2 Claims 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, 21, and 25-27 have been cancelled. Appeal2017-002150 Application 14/366,195 Spec. 1 :3--4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A method comprising: causing a wireless apparatus to establish a radio connection with an access point; after completing the establishment of the radio connection, carrying out a network connection test in the wireless apparatus, the network connection test comprising testing whether or not the access point has a working connection with a network server and, when the network connection test fails, terminating the radio connection and changing a classification of the access point in the wireless apparatus temporarily into a no-connectivity class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network connection, wherein a duration the access point is maintained in the no-connectivity class is defined by a timer counted in the wireless apparatus. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1--4, 8, 11, 13-16, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nanda et al. (US 2007/0249291 Al; published Oct. 25, 2007) (hereinafter, "Nanda") and Wu et al. (US 2011/0110282 Al; published May 12, 2011) (hereinafter, "Wu"). Ans. 2-11. Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nanda, Wu, and Murty et al. (US 2008/0320108 Al; published Dec. 25, 2008). Ans. 11-12. Claims 10 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nanda, Wu, and Scherzer et al. (US 2009/0124284 Al; published May 14, 2009). Ans. 12-14. 2 Appeal2017-002150 Application 14/366,195 Claims 12 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nanda, Wu, and Mok (US 2010/0172335 Al; published July 8, 2010). Ans. 14--15. We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Nanda teaches recording failures of network connection in a visited Access Point (hereinafter, "AP") list, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "no-connectivity class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network connection" recited in claims 1 and 13. Ans. 2, 4 (citing Nanda ,r 33). The Examiner concludes a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention (hereinafter, "PHOSITA") would have combined Nanda and Wu to enhance throughput capacity on a WLAN. Id. at 6, 17-18 (citing Nanda ,r 20; Wu i124). Appellants argue Nanda fails to teach any reason to remove an AP from the database of APs that should be avoided. App. Br. 7. In addition, Appellants argue Nanda teaches away from ever removing an AP because a PHOSITA would never want to remove a rogue AP from a database of APs that should be avoided. Id. And Appellants argue Wu fails to teach a "no- connectivity class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network connection" as recited in claims 1 and 13 because Wu's wireless terminal is not prevented from connecting to an AP in the AP fringe list. Id. 3 Appeal2017-002150 Application 14/366,195 Also, Appellants argue that because Wu fails to teach a "no-connectivity class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network connection," a PHOSITA would not have considered Wu's timer related to the "AP fringe list" for modifying Nanda's "list of access points that should be avoided." Id. at 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner fails to explain how a PHOSITA would combine Nanda and Wu. App. Br. 8. Regarding Appellants' argument that Nanda fails to teach any reason to remove an AP from the database of APs that should be avoided (App. Br. 7), we disagree that a PHOSITA reading Nanda would conclude it teaches away from combining with Wu because Nanda teaches maintaining a list of APs that should be avoided, which is analogous to Wu's AP fringe list. See Nanda ,r 37; Wu ,r 29. Although Appellants argue a PHOSITA would not want to remove "a 'rogue access point' operated by a 'malicious individual"' from the database of access points that should be avoided (App. Br. 7), we agree with the Examiner that Nanda's type of access point that should be avoided (i.e., the type of access point in the claimed "no-connectivity class") is not limited to a "rogue" access point. See Ans. 16. Instead, Nanda discloses the "list of access points that should be avoided" "may include, by way of example, rogue access points." Nanda ,r 37 (emphasis added). Thus, a "rogue" access point is only one type of access point on the list of access points that should be avoided. Nanda further discloses the list "may also" include other types of access points for various other reasons, such as due to "disturbances in the wireless channel ... or for any other reason that would result in low quality service" or because the access point is "unsuitable for a given type of service (VoIP)." Id. ( emphasis added). Nanda's service- 4 Appeal2017-002150 Application 14/366,195 related reasons for a list of access points that should be avoided is similar to Wu's "AP fringe list" where access points are placed temporarily if "the quantity of consecutive failed frame exchanges" exceeds a threshold. Wu ,r 23; Final Act. 15-16 (citing Wu ,r 23). Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument narrowly focusing on Nanda's "rogue" access points. Regarding Appellants' argument that Wu fails to teach a "no- connectivity class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network connection" as recited in claims 1 and 13, we are not persuaded because we agree with the Examiner's findings that Nanda teaches this feature. Ans. 2, 4 (citing Nanda ,r,r 33, 37). As discussed above, Appellants do not rebut the Examiner's findings that Nanda teaches a "no-connectivity class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network connection" as recited in claims 1 and 13. We also disagree with Appellants because one cannot show non-obviousness "by attacking references individually" where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981)). Appellants argue that because Wu fails to teach a "no-connectivity class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network connection," a PHOSITA would not have considered Wu's timer related to the "AP fringe list" for modifying Nanda's "list of access points that should be avoided." App. Br. 7-8. This argument is based on a flawed argument (i.e., whether Wu fails to teach a "no-connectivity class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network connection") explained in the preceding paragraph. We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that a PHOSITA would have combined Nanda and Wu to enhance throughput 5 Appeal2017-002150 Application 14/366,195 capacity on a WLAN. Ans. 6, 17-18 (citing Nanda ,r 20; Wu ,r 24). More specifically, the cited portion of Nanda relied upon by the Examiner teaches a WLAN. Ans. 6, 17-18 (citing Nanda ,r 20). Wu also relates to WLAN APs. Wu ,r 19. And the cited portion of Wu teaches that a wireless terminal may not be able to connect with a particular AP while in a dead zone, but when the wireless terminal is moved, the AP can be removed from the fringe list so that the wireless terminal can enjoy the benefits of a network connection (e.g., throughput). Wu ,r 24; Ans. 17-18 (citing Wu ,r 24). Wu's temporary dead zone is similar to the service-related reasons for an AP being on Nanda's list of APs that should be avoided, as discussed above. As taught by the cited portion of Wu, making an AP's time on such a list temporary enables devices "to recover from temporary poor connection quality situations." Wu ,r 24. Appellants argue the dependent claim rejections should be withdrawn for the reasons the independent claim rejections should be withdrawn. App. Br. 9-10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of: (1) independent claims 1 and 13; and (2) dependent claims 2--4, 6, 8, 10-12, 14--16, 18, 20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10-16, 18, 20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation