Ex Parte WOO

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 20, 2018

13660378 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
13/660,378
33942 7590
Cha & Reiter, LLC
17 Arcadian A venue
Suite 208
Paramus, NJ 07652
FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
10/25/2012 Yong-Ha WOO
04/20/2018
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.
5000-1-1506 2861
EXAMINER
MUI, GARY
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2464
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
04/20/2018 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte YONG-HA WOO
Appeal 2017-011115
Application 13/660,378
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant 1 seeks our review, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4--19. Claim 3 has been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as "Samsung Electronics Co.,
Ltd." (App. Br. 3).
Appeal2017-011115
Application 13/660,378
INVENTION
The present invention relates to a mobile device that scans for
wireless access at a predetermined interval, and when idling, scans for
access immediately if awakened. (Spec. 6:12-15; see also Fig. 3.)
The independent claims on appeal are claims 1, 7, and 14. Claim 1 is
reproduced, below, with emphasis added.
1. A method for accessing an Access Point (AP) of
Wireless LAN system in a mobile phone, comprising:
performing a scan for finding at least one AP of Wireless
LAN system according to a predetermined scan cycle by system
settings;
turning a display of the mobile phone off and
automatically entering a sleep mode of the mobile phone, when
the mobile phone has not been used for a predetermined time
period or when a display tum off request is inputted by a user and
continuing to perform the scan according to the predetermined
scan cycle while in the sleep mode;
receiving a user input for turning the display on to wake
up from the sleep mode of the mobile phone during the
predetermined scan cycle;
in response to the receiving the user input for turning the
display on, performing an immediate scan, which is independent
of a performance of the predetermined scan cycle, for finding at
least one AP regardless of a point in time at which the user input
is received in the predetermined scan cycle; and
if an AP is found by the immediate scan, determine
whether the found AP is accessible.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 2, and 4--19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Balasubramanian (US 2008/0014934 Al; published
2
Appeal2017-011115
Application 13/660,378
Jan. 17, 2008) and Mudrick (US 2011/0273998 Al; published Nov. 10,
2011). (Final Act. 3-15.)
ANALYSIS
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments (App. Br. 8-14; see
also Reply Br. 2---6) that the combination of Balasubramanian and Mudrick
would not have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the
limitations "continuing to perform the scan according to the predetermined
scan cycle while in the sleep mode" and "in response to the receiving the
user input for turning the display on, performing an immediate scan, which
is independent of a performance of the predetermined scan cycle."
The Examiner found that the terminal of Balasubramanian, which
periodically scans for access points in the WLAN system while in idle mode,
corresponds to the limitation "continuing to perform the scan according to
the predetermined scan cycle while in the sleep mode." (Final Act. 3; see
also Ans. 15-16.) The Examiner further found that the manual scan of
Balasubramanian corresponds to the limitation "independent of a
performance of the predetermined scan cycle." (Final Act. 3--4; see also
Ans. 16.) Moreover, the Examiner found that the communication device
display Mudrick, which triggers an immediate signal strength check when
the display is turned on, corresponds the limitation "in response to the
receiving the user input for turning the display on." (Final Act. 4--5; see also
Ans. 17.) The Examiner concluded that "it would have been obvious ... to
have the device [of Balasubramanian] ... which has a display to tum on/off
as initiated by the user and ... perform a function upon the display
activating as taught by Mudrick." (Final Act. 5; see also Ans. 17.) We
agree with the Examiner's findings and conclusions.
3
Appeal2017-011115
Application 13/660,378
Balasubramanian relates to "techniques for scanning and selecting
wireless local area network (WLAN) systems" (i-f 3), for example, "WLAN
systems [that] are widely deployed to support wireless communication for
terminals" (i-f 5). Balasubramanian explains that "multiple scan iterations
may be used to obtain more accurate measurements for access points" and
"multiple scan iterations may ... be used to support different types of scan
(e.g., passive scan and active scan)." (i-f 8.) Balasubramanian further
explains that "[t]he terminal may also support various operating modes such
as an idle mode and an in-traffic mode" and "[i]n both the idle and in-traffic
modes, the terminal may periodically scan for other access points in the
same WLAN system for possible handoff." (i-f 34.) Moreover,
Balasubramanian explains that "[t]he terminal may perform [a] manual scan
whenever requested by a user" to provide a "comprehensive list of all
WLAN systems detected by the terminal to the user." (i-f 35.) Accordingly,
Balasubramanian teaches the limitations "continuing to perform the scan
according to the predetermined scan cycle while in the sleep mode" and
"which is independent of a performance of the predetermined scan cycle."
Mudrick relates to "monitoring parameters with respect to wireless
communication devices" (i-f l ), for example "signal strength monitoring ...
typically displayed by a cellular phone to a user via a received signal
strength indicator (RSSI)" (i-f 2). Mudrick explains that"[ w ]hen the display
is turned on ... the device detects the display activation, and triggers a
substantially immediate signal strength check and updates the RSSI with the
current signal strength." (i-f 41.) Accordingly, Mudrick teaches the
limitation "in response to the receiving the user input for turning the display
on."
4
Appeal2017-011115
Application 13/660,378
As found by the Examiner (Final Act. 5), a person of ordinary skill in
the art would have recognized that modifying Balasubramanian, such that
the manual scan of Balasubramanian is triggered when the display is turned
on, as taught by Mudrick, would improve Balasubramanian by more
effectively locating access points to the WLAN system. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007) ("[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill."). The
combination of Balasubramanian and Mudrick, therefore, teaches the
limitation "in response to the receiving the user input for turning the display
on, performing an immediate scan." Thus, we agree with the Examiner
(Final Act. 5) that modifying Balasubramanian to incorporate the scan of
Mudrick, which is trigged when the display is turned on, would have been
obvious.
Appellant argues that "Balasubramanian does not teach 'in response
to the receiving the user input for turning the display on, performing an
immediate scan, which is independent of a performance of the
predetermined scan cycle'" (App. Br. 11 (emphasis omitted)) because "the
manual scan [of Balasubramanian is] performed whenever there is a request
from the user, but not in response to the display tum-on" and "[t]he scan that
occurs when the device is turned on is referred to as 'automatic' which is
performed periodically" (id. at 10 (emphasis omitted)). However, as
discussed previously, the Examiner relied upon the combination of
Balasubramanian and Mudrick, rather than Balasubramanian, for teaching
the limitation "in response to the receiving the user input for turning the
5
Appeal2017-011115
Application 13/660,378
display on, performing an immediate scan, which is independent of a
performance of the predetermined scan cycle." The rejection of claim 1 is
based on the combination of Balasubramanian and Mudrick, and Appellant
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually. See In
re Keller, 642 F.2d413, 426(CCPA1981).
Appellant further argues that the rejection is in error because the
Examiner incorrectly assumes "that because an RSSI signal check is
preceded or during scanning in Balasubramanian, the RSSI signal check in
Mudrick is also preceded by scanning." (Reply Br. 3.) However, even if
Appellant is correct that RS SI signal check cannot be preceded by scanning,
the Examiner cited Mudrick for the general teaching of "perform[ing] a
function upon the display activating" (i.e., when the display is turned on).
(Final Act. 5.) Appellant has not provided any evidence or arguments as to
why the Examiner's findings with respect to Mudrick are improper.
Appellant also argues that "Mudrick ... does not teach 'in response to
the receiving the user input for turning the display on, performing an
immediate scan"' because "[w]hen the display is turned on ... the device
detects the display activation and triggers a substantially immediate signal
strength check and updates the RSSI with the current signal strength" and
"checking the signal strength of a known signal is altogether different than
scanning." (App. Br. 12 (emphases omitted).) However, the Examiner cited
to the manual scan of Balasubramanian, rather than Mudrick, for teaching
the limitation "performing an immediate scan." (Final Act. 4--5.) Again, the
rejection of claim 1 is based on the combination of Balasubramanian and
Mudrick, and Appellant cannot show non-obviousness by attacking
references individually. See Keller, 642 F .2d at 426.
6
Appeal2017-011115
Application 13/660,378
Last, Appellant argues that "[i]t is noted that 'the predetermined scan
cycle while in the sleep mode' takes antecedent basis to 'a predetermined
scan cycle by system settings"' but "Mudrick specifically teaches reducing
the sleep cycle to save current." (App. Br. 13; see also Reply Br. 5.)
However, the Examiner cited to the periodic idle mode scans of
Balasubramanian, rather than Mudrick, for teaching the limitations "the
predetermined scan cycle while in the sleep mode." (Final Act. 3; see also
Ans. 15-16.)
Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of
Balasubramanian and Mudrick would have rendered obvious independent
claim 1, which includes the limitations "continuing to perform the scan
according to the predetermined scan cycle while in the sleep mode" and "in
response to the receiving the user input for turning the display on,
performing an immediate scan, which is independent of a performance of the
predetermined scan cycle."
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1under35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2 and 4--6 depend from claim 1, and Appellant has
not presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these
claims. Therefore, we also sustain the rejection of claims 2 and 4--6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
Independent claims 7 and 14 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1, and Appellant has not
presented any additional substantive arguments with respect to these claims.
We therefore, sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 14, as well as dependent
claims 8-13 and 15-19 for the same reasons discussed with respect to
claim 1.
7
Appeal2017-011115
Application 13/660,378
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4--19 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
8