Ex Parte Rodriguez et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2016

13531146 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/531,146 06/22/2012
60501 7590 06/30/2016
LENOVO COMPANY (LENOVO-KLS)
c/o Kennedy Lenart Spraggins LLP
8601 Ranch Road 2222
Ste. 1-225
AUSTIN, TX 78730
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Adrian X. Rodriguez
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.
XRPS920110015US2 5550
EXAMINER
RECEK, JASON D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2016 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):
office@klspatents.com
kate@klspatents.com
hanna@klspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ADRIAN X. RODRIGUEZ, CARLOS SANTANA,
KETAN K. SHAH, and JARED T. SIIRILA
Appeal2015-001251
Application 13/531,146
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, and
NATHAN A. ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judges.
ENGELS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-3 and 5-7. Claims 4 and 8-21 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
Appeal2015-001251
Application 13/531,146
ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below with italics added, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
1. A method of selecting a network connection for data
communications with a networked device, the method
compnsmg:
identifying a plurality of networks available for data
communications with the networked device, each network
having network connection attributes, wherein the network
connection attributes include at least a power consumption
upload rate, a power consumption download rate, upload fail
rate, and a download fail rate;
determining a location of the networked device including
prompting a user of the networked device to select the location
from amongst a collection of known locations;
determining a direction of data transfer, from the
perspective of the networked device, for which the network is to
be selected; and
selecting one of the plurality of networks in dependence
upon the network connection attributes for the determined
direction of data transfer from the perspective of the networked
device, and in dependence upon the location of the networked
device.
THE EXAMINER'S REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ayukawa (US 2005/0005038 Al; Jan. 6, 2005) in view of
Strahm (US 2002/0133598 Al; Sept. 19, 2002), Li (US 2012/0058782 Al;
Mar. 8, 2012), and Rappaport (US 2004/0236547 Al; Nov. 25, 2004).
Claims 5 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Ayukawa, Strahm, Li, Rappaport, and Tolety (US
6,996,132 Bl; Feb. 7, 2006).
2
Appeal2015-001251
Application 13/531,146
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue none of Ayukawa, Strahm, and Li teach direction-
specific network-connection attributes and selection of a network based on
such attributes. Specifically, Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding
that Strahm teaches the limitation "network connection attributes include at
least a power consumption upload rate, a power consumption download rate,
upload fail rate, and a download fail rate." Br. 3---6.
The Examiner finds Appellants' Specification lacks details regarding
how the claimed network-connection attributes are calculated and,
"[t]herefore, the proper claim interpretation of these attributes includes any
way of measuring or calculating the power consumption and fail rates during
the transmission of data between network devices in one direction." Ans. 3.
Applying that interpretation, the Examiner finds that Strahm teaches the
claimed attributes with its disclosure of "measuring equipment performance
including bit error rate, frame error rate, packet error rate[,] power levels and
power consumption." Ans. 3 (citing Strahm i-f 103).
We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in interpreting the
claimed network-connection attributes to include Strahm's disclosure of
attributes that measured without regard to the direction of data transfer.
Although measuring power consumption may result in measuring power
consumption during upload and download, the cited portions of Strahm do
not distinguish between the two, and thus do not teach or suggest selecting
the network "in dependence upon the network connection attributes for the
determined direction of data transfer," as required by claim 1. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, nor the rejections of
claims 2, 3, and 5-7, each of which depends from claim 1.
3
Appeal2015-001251
Application 13/531,146
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7.
REVERSED
4