11908567 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2014)

Ex Parte Soomro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 9, 2014

11908567 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 9, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte AMJAD SOOMRO and DAVE CAVALCANTI ____________________ Appeal 2012-003857 Application 11/908,567 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHN G. NEW, and WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges. FINK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, and 8. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ Invention Appellants’ invention relates to improvements in quality-of-service (“QoS”) on a wireless network. (Spec. 1 and Abstract.)2 Specifically, 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. Appeal 2012-003857 Application 11/908,567 2 Appellants claim systems and methods for measuring a QoS metric parameter, updating a moving average of the parameter, and adjusting a network parameter based upon the updated moving average. (Id. at 3–4 and Abstract.) Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 7, and 8 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellants’ invention and is reproduced below with disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method of determining quality of service (QoS) metrics in a wireless network, comprising: measuring a QoS metric parameter in a sampling operation; storing the measured QoS metric parameter in a memory; updating a moving average QoS metric parameter of a series of QoS metric parameters based on the stored measured QoS metric parameter and a weighting factor; and adjusting at least one network parameter based at least in part on said updated moving average QoS metric parameter. Evidence Considered Leach US 2002/0089994 A1 July 11, 2002 Guo US 2004/0170150 A1 Sept. 2, 2004 Hsu US 6,901,046 B2 May 31, 2005 Lloyd US 2008/0089241 A1 Apr. 17, 2008 2 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed July 19, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed October 27, 2011 (“Ans.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed December 27, 2011; Final Office Action mailed February 14, 2011 (“Final Act.”); and the original Specification filed September 13, 2007 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-003857 Application 11/908,567 3 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Lloyd. (Ans. 4–9.) Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hsu in view of Leach and Lloyd. (Ans. 9–19.) Claims 1, 2, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Lloyd and Hsu. (Ans. 19–30.) Claim 7 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Guo in view of Lloyd, Leach, and Hsu. (Ans. 30–37.) Issue on Appeal Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether Guo teaches “updating a moving average QoS metric parameter . . . .” (App. Br. 13–16; Ans. 48–51.) ANALYSIS Claims 1, 2, and 8 With respect to Appellants’ independent claims 1 and 8 and dependent claim 2, the Examiner relies on the combination of Guo, Lloyd, and Hsu, for one of the rejections. (Ans. 19.) Specifically, the Examiner finds that Guo teaches a system and method for measuring a “QoS metric parameter,” specifically, failure probabilities, Pc and Pf. (Id. at 19–20 (citing Guo ¶¶ 34– 49, 73 & Figs. 2, 4–5).) The Examiner also finds that Guo teaches updating an average of the QoS metric parameter (i.e., failure probabilities) and adjusting at least one network parameter based upon the average QoS metric parameter; however, Guo does not teach that the updated average is a App App “mov the r 24, 2 (App deter obta does sugg prob App conc argu 14.) Rega . . . f Pf,me (Ans and P prev base and P there eal 2012-0 lication 11 ing” aver ecited mov 7–28.) Appellan . Br. 13–1 mining a f in an avera not “upda ests determ ability, Gu ellants[’] c We are n ede that G ment is tha Appellant rdless, the or network asured(n),” a . 49 (quot f, measured(n iously com d on “insta f(n) are u fore agree 03857 /908,567 age as reci ing averag ts dispute 4.) Specif ailure pro ge probab te[e] an av ining a fa o does no laim 1.”).) ot persuad uo does at t Guo doe s provide Examine paramete s in the fo ing Guo ¶ ) represen puted pro ntaneous pdated at l with the E ted in the e, the Exa the Exam ically, Ap bability an ility,” but erage.” (I ilure prob t suggest u ed by App least disc s not discl no explana r responds rs are alw llowing eq 73).) Acc t the “curr babilities P changes.” east every xaminer t 4 claim. (Id miner reli iner’s find pellants co d then app contend th d. at 14 (“ ability and pdating an ellants’ a lose “an av ose “upda tion as to that Guo d ays update uations: ording to G ent metric c(n-1) and Guo ¶¶ 73 N sample hat these e . at 20 (cit es on Lloy ings with ncede tha lying a sm at, in cont In other w then dete average, rgument. erage pro ting” an av why there iscloses “ [d] by the uo, the qu ” and are a Pf(n-1) to –74. The s. Id. ¶¶ 6 quations a ing Guo ¶ d or Hsu. respect to t Guo “dis oothing fu rast to cla ords, altho rmining an as set fort Because A bability,” t erage. (A is no upda averaging Pc,measured(n antities P veraged w avoid res probabilit 7–68 & Fi re describ 73).) For (Id. at 23– Guo. closes nction to im 1, Guo ugh Guo average h in ppellants he pp. Br. ting. function ) or c, measured(n) ith the ponding ies Pc(n) g. 3. We ing Appeal 2012-003857 Application 11/908,567 5 “updating a[n] . . . average,” as recited in the claims, given that Guo shows smoothing functions over time. We add that in the Reply Brief, Appellants do not attempt to rebut the Examiner’s specific finding in this regard. Appellants present no separate substantive arguments for claims 2 and 8, (see App. Br. 14–15); therefore, we do not treat these claims separately on Appeal. See 37 C.F.R § 41.37 (c) (1) (iv). Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2, and 8. Claim 7 For independent claim 7, the Examiner relies on the combination of Guo, Lloyd, Leach, and Hsu. (Id. at 30–37.) Appellants point out that claim 7 is different from claim 1, but apply the same “arguments for claim 1 to the specific features and claim interpretation of claim 7.” (App. Br. 16.) As noted supra, we are not persuaded by this line of argument. For individual claims to be treated separately on Appeal, Appellants must articulate more substantive arguments than merely pointing out differences in the claims. See 37 C.F.R § 41.37 (c) (1) (iv); In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (affirming the Board’s interpretation of Rule 41.37 as requiring more than pointing out differences in claims). Because Appellants fail to present any separate substantive arguments for why claim 7 is patentable other than incorporating its arguments for claim 1, we sustain the rejection of claim 7 for the same reasons as above with respect to claim 1. Appeal 2012-003857 Application 11/908,567 6 CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 2, 7, and 8. Our affirmance is dispositive as to all claims on appeal. It is not necessary, therefore, to address the other, cumulative grounds of rejection entered by the Examiner. See In re Hyon, 679 F.3d 1363, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (noting that affirmance of rejection of all claims under § 103(a) made it unnecessary to reach other grounds of rejection); Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (holding that by deciding a single dispositive issue, the ITC was not required to review other matters decided by the presiding officer). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a) (1) (iv). AFFIRMED tj