10578646 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2014)

Ex Parte Soomro

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 18, 2014

10578646 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 18, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AMJAD SOOMRO ____________________ Appeal 2012-004156 Application 10/578,646 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: LYNNE H. BROWNE, ANNETTE R. REIMERS, and BRANDON J. WARNER, Administrative Patent Judges. BROWNE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Amjad Soomro (Appellant) appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–23. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and a system for providing service to wireless devices operating in a power saving mode. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: Appeal 2012-004156 Application 10/578,646 2 1. A method to determine in a network component when to provide service to client devices operating in power-saving mode in a wireless network, said method comprising: receiving requests for service from respective ones of said client devices, the received requests for service including a request for scheduled service received from a first one of the client devices and a request for unscheduled service received from a second one of the client devices, said network component being informed of said request for scheduled service by a field of a traffic specification format being set to a first value, said network component being informed of said request for unscheduled service by said field of said traffic specification format being set to a second value different from said first value; determining an ability to accommodate said received requests for service; and providing respective indications of the ability to accommodate said received requests for service to the first and second ones of said client devices. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Rogers US 7,274,691 B2 Sept. 25, 2007 Smith Benveniste US 2003/0126244 A1 US 2004/0264397 A1 July 3, 2003 Dec. 30, 2004 REJECTIONS Claims 1, 3–8, 10–20, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benveniste and Rogers. Claims 2, 9, 21, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benveniste, Rogers, and Smith. Appeal 2012-004156 Application 10/578,646 3 OPINION Rejection Based on Benveniste and Rogers Claims 1 and 3–7 Appellant argues claims 1 and 3–7 together. See Appeal Br. 20. We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim and claims 3–7 stand or fall with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011). The Examiner finds that the combined teachings of Benveniste and Rogers disclose or suggest all of the limitations of independent claim 1. In particular, the Examiner finds that Benveniste discloses “a request for scheduled service received from a first one of the client devices . . . and a request for unscheduled service received from a second one of the client devices.” Ans. 5, 6 (citations omitted). The Examiner further finds that Benveniste discloses “[a] method to determine in a network component when to provide service to client devices operating in power-saving mode in a wireless network.” Id. at 5 (citation omitted). Appellant argues that in Rogers “[t]here is no mention of using a field of traffic specification format to indicate whether a request for service is a request for scheduled service or a request for unscheduled service.” Appeal Br. 18; see also id. at 19. Appellant further argues that “Rogers appears to be completely unrelated to devices operating in a power-saving mode.” Id. at 18. Appellant’s argument is not responsive to the rejection as articulated by the Examiner. As discussed supra, the Examiner relies on Benveniste (not Rogers) for the disclosure of requests for scheduled and unscheduled services and a method for providing service to devices operating in a power- saving mode. Moreover, the Examiner finds that “Rogers disclose[s] Appeal 2012-004156 Application 10/578,646 4 scheduled and unscheduled packet data (see Col. 17, lines 6-8). A field of traffic specification format informs the switch whether the packets are scheduled or unscheduled, see Col. 17, line 64 – Col. 18, line 19, specifically the determining can be ‘YES’ or ‘NO’.” Ans. 18. Appellant does not contest these findings, and thus does not apprise us of error. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benveniste and Rogers, and claims 3–7, which fall therewith. Claims 8 and 10–17 Appellant argues claims 8 and 10–17 together. See Appeal Br. 23. We select independent claim 8 as the representative and claims 10–17 stand or fall with claim 8. Appellant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of independent claim 8 merely repeat the arguments pertaining to independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 20–23. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benveniste and Rogers, and claims 10–17, which fall therewith. Claims 18–20 Appellant argues claims 18–20 together. See Appeal Br. 26. We select independent claim 18 as the representative claim and claims 19 and 20 stand or fall with claim 18. Appellant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of independent claim 18 merely repeat the arguments pertaining to independent claim 1. Appeal 2012-004156 Application 10/578,646 5 See Appeal Br. 23–26. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benveniste and Rogers, and claims 19 and 20, which fall therewith. Claim 22 Appellant’s arguments pertaining to the rejection of independent claim 22 merely repeat the arguments pertaining to independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 26-29. These arguments are not persuasive for the reasons discussed supra. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting independent claim 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benveniste and Rogers. Rejection Based on Benveniste, Rogers, and Smith Claims 2, 9, 21, and 23 Appellant does not present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 2, 9, 21, and 23. See Appeal Br. 20, 23, 26, 29. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 9, 21, and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Benveniste, Rogers, and Smith. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–23 is AFFIRMED. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). Appeal 2012-004156 Application 10/578,646 6 AFFIRMED llw