Gregory Raleigh

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 8, 2021

2020004562 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 8, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
12/380,758 03/02/2009 Gregory G. Raleigh RALEP003
[26WV-160484]
8613
107265 7590 02/08/2021
Headwater Research LLC - Outside Firm 1
1011 Pruitt Place
Tyler, TX 75703
EXAMINER
SHEIKH, ASFAND M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3627
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2021 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):
patent@headwaterllc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte GREGORY G. RALEIGH
____________

Appeal 2020-004562
Application 12/380,758
Technology Center 3600
____________

Before NINA L. MEDLOCK, BRUCE T. WIEDER, and
ROBERT J. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

MEDLOCK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1, 203, 204, 206–212, 216–218, 220–231, 233, 234,
240–246, 250, 255, 258, 271, 272, and 275. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42. Our decision references Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.,”
filed November 4, 2019) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed
February 21, 2020), and Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed March 4,
2019). Appellant identifies Headwater Research LLC as the real party in
interest (Appeal Br. 4).
Appeal 2020-004562
Application 12/380,758

2
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claimed invention relates to “a services policy communication
system and method” (Spec., Abstr.).
Claim 1, reproduced below, is the sole independent claim and
representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. A system, comprising a mobile end-user device and
a network system,
the mobile end-user device comprising:
a Wireless Wide-Area Network (WWAN) modem
to communicate Internet data over at least one cellular
network;
a Wireless Local-Area Network (WLAN) modem to
communicate Internet data over at least one local area
network; and
one or more processors configured to
select a first set of service profile settings for
Internet data communication over the at least one
cellular network,
select a second set of service profile settings
for Internet data communication over the at least
one local area network,
according to the first set of service profile
settings,
classify data traffic associated with
each of a plurality of monitored Internet data
service activities and the at least one cellular
network,
generate classification information,
including information associating a portion
of the data traffic with one of the monitored
Internet data service activities, and
Appeal 2020-004562
Application 12/380,758

3
send the classification information for
the data traffic to at least one network
element in the network system other than a
network element that is a packet protocol
peer with the mobile end-user device for the
data traffic,
the network system comprising the at least one network
element and configured to:
receive the classification information for the data
traffic from the mobile end-user device; and
based at least in part on the received classification
information, apply a wireless Internet data service policy
to the usage of the at least one cellular network for one or
more of, but not all of, the monitored Internet data service
activities by the mobile end-user device.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 203, 204, 206–209, 211, 212, 216, 220–223, 240–246, 250,
255, 258, and 271 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Montemurro et al. (US 8,825,109 B2, issued Sept. 2, 2014)
(“Montemurro”), Sharif-Ahmadi et al. (US 2008/0279216 A1, published
Nov. 13, 2008) (“Sharif-Ahmadi”), and Swan et al. (US 7,835,275 B1,
issued Nov. 16, 2010) (“Swan”).
Claim 210 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Montemurro, Sharif-Ahmadi, Swan, and Feuerstein et al. (US 6,141,565,
issued Oct. 31, 2000) (“Feuerstein”).
Claims 217, 218, 224–231, 233, 234, 272, and 275 are rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Montemurro, Sharif-Ahmadi, Swan,
and Examiner’s Official Notice as evidenced by Hertzberg et al.
(US 2004/0225561 A1, published Nov. 11, 2004) (“Hertzberg”).
Appeal 2020-004562
Application 12/380,758

4
ANALYSIS
Independent Claim 1 and Dependent Claims 203, 204, 206–209, 211, 212,
216, 220–223, 240–246, 250, 255, 258, and 271
We are persuaded by Appellant’s argument that the Examiner erred in
rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 at least because none of
Montemurro, Sharif-Ahmadi, and Swan, individually or in combination,
discloses or suggests “according to the first set of service profile settings,
classify[ing] data traffic associated with each of a plurality of monitored
Internet data service activities and the at least one cellular network,” as
recited in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 13–18).2
Montemurro relates to policy-based routing of communications
among two or more modes of wireless communication (Montemurro, col. 1,
ll. 5–9), and discloses that communication devices capable of at least two
communication modes (e.g., WLAN, WMAN, and WWAN and/or wired
modes) can be configured to optimize communications using a policy-based
mechanism to configure connections and routes (id. at col. 2, ll. 10–16).
Montemurro describes that “[a] rules engine evaluates its policies on a state
change (e.g.[,] network availability, time of day, etc.) to configure a routing
table and, together with communication APIs, provides an appropriate
connection to an application for its respective communications” (id. at col. 2,
ll. 16–20).

2 Although the Examiner acknowledges that Montemurro fails to explicitly
disclose the argued limitation (see Final Act. 14–15), the Examiner, as
Appellant observes, “confusingly” cites Montemurro at column 4,
lines 50–61 as disclosing “according to the first set of service profile
settings, classify[ing] data traffic associated with each of a plurality of
monitored Internet data service activities” (id. at 3–4, 14).
Appeal 2020-004562
Application 12/380,758

5
Referencing Figure 2, Montemurro states at column 4, lines 50–61,
cited by the Examiner, that “[w]hen an IP packet is destined for
transmission, the TCP/IP network stack software 206B matches the
IP header of the packet to an entry in the routing table 210”; that match then
determines which network interface 208, i.e., WLAN network 208A or
WWAN network 208C, will be used for transmission of the packet.
Montemurro, thus, discloses a routing operation that matches a
source/destination IP address pair of a packet to an interface so that some
address pairs are routed to a WLAN device interface while other address
pairs are routed to a WWAN device interface.
The Examiner equates the claimed “service profile settings” to the
rules used to build the routing table. And the Examiner takes the position
that using the routing table to match IP headers of a packet constitutes
“classifying,” as called for in claim 1, under a broadest reasonable
interpretation (Final Act. 3; see also Ans. 4). We, however, agree with
Appellant that optimizing the flow of data communications to/from a mobile
device by adjusting a routing table on the device, as disclosed in
Montemurro, so that some connections are handled, e.g., by a WWAN
modem, and other connections are handled, e.g., by a WLAN modem, does
not constitute “according to the first set of service profile settings,
classify[ing] data traffic associated with each of a plurality of monitored
Internet data service activities and the at least one cellular network,” as
called for in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 17–18).
Claim 1, reproduced above, is directed to a system comprising a
mobile end-user device and a network system, and recites that the mobile
end-user device comprises a wireless wide-area network (WWAN) modem
Appeal 2020-004562
Application 12/380,758

6
to communicate Internet data over a cellular network, a wireless local-area
network (WLAN) modem to communicate Internet data over a local area
network, and one or more processors. Claim 1 recites that the one or more
processors are configured to select a first set of service profile settings “for
Internet data communication over the at least one cellular network” and a
second set of service profile settings “for Internet data communication over
the at least one local area network.” And the claim further recites that the
first set of service profile settings is used to “classify data traffic associated
with each of a plurality of monitored Internet data service activities and the
at least one cellular network.” In other words, the one or more processors
select the first set of service profile settings or second set of service profile
settings, depending on how Internet data communications are directed (i.e.,
via a cellular network or via a local area network), and for the cellular
network (i.e., when the WWAN modem is in use for communication with a
cellular network) use the first set of service profile settings to classify data
traffic for different monitored Internet data service activities. The resulting
classification information is then transmitted to the network system, where it
is used to apply a wireless Internet data service policy to the mobile end-user
device’s use of the cellular network.
There is no dispute that Montemurro discloses routing some IP
address pairs to a WLAN device interface and other address pairs to a
WWAN device interface. But, we agree with Appellant that for IP address
pairs associated with the WWAN device interface, no classification is
performed for “data traffic associated with each of a plurality of monitored
Internet data service activities,” as called for in claim 1 (Appeal Br. 17).
Appeal 2020-004562
Application 12/380,758

7
Instead, “[d]ata traffic is merely routed through the WWAN device interface
according to a routing table” (id.).
The Examiner further relies on Sharif-Ahmadi as disclosing the
argued limitation (Final Act. 15–16). But, we agree with Appellant that the
Examiner’s reliance on Sharif-Ahmadi is similarly misplaced (Appeal
Br. 18).
Sharif-Ahmadi is directed to a method and apparatus for providing
mixed mobile data traffic management over wired, wireless, or mixed
networks (Sharif-Ahmadi ¶ 23), and discloses that the system and method
address “the diverse requirements of different data types and their behaviour
over different wireless networks” (id.). Sharif-Ahmadi describes that the
traffic management system includes, inter alia, a dynamic multimedia
protocol (“DMP”), and that incoming and outgoing packets are carried by
the DMP, which adapts itself as necessary depending on the type of network
being used, the type of packet being transmitted, and the network guidelines
(id. ¶¶ 23, 61–68). Sharif-Ahmadi, thus, discloses that data traffic is
classified by type, e.g., voice, video, audio, and data, and a traffic model is
identified based on the characteristics and requirements, e.g., priority of
delivery, maximum error rate, of each data type (id. ¶¶ 73–77).
The Examiner cites paragraphs 27 and 28 of Sharif-Ahmadi as
disclosing the argued limitation (Final Act. 4, 15–16; see also Ans. 4–6).
There, Sharif-Ahmadi discloses a method of transmitting a packet from an
application operating in a networked device to a far-host, and describes that
the method comprises: (1) intercepting the packet within the device after it is
sent from the application; (2) modifying the packet to include information
relating to a protocol used for transmission of the packet and a classification
Appeal 2020-004562
Application 12/380,758

8
of the packet; (3) scheduling the modified packet for transmission based on
the classification; and (d) transmitting the packet to said far-host (Sharif-
Ahmadi ¶ 27). Sharif-Ahmadi further discloses at paragraph 28 that the
method may include identifying the application that is sending the packet;
requesting a transport protocol associated with the application; sending a
response to the application that the packet was processed; classifying the
packet according to the type of the packet; and passing the modified packet
to an UPD/IP layer in the device (id. ¶ 28).
Responding to Appellant’s argument that the “classification [disclosed
in Sharif-Ahmadi] has nothing to do with classifying data traffic according
to a first set of service profile settings for Internet data communication over
a cellular network, as required by claim 1,” the Examiner cites
paragraphs 48 and 49 of Sharif-Ahmadi as teaching that the network
protocols can be GSM/3G (cellular) and/or WLAN (Ans. 5). The Examiner
concludes, “thus modifying said packet to include information relating
to a protocol used for transmission of said packet and a classification of
said packet, see [0027]” and “identifying the application that is sending
the packet . . . classifying said packet according to the type of said
packet and passing said modified packet, see [0028]” reasonably read on
the claim language (Ans. 5–6). But, we fail to see how, and Examiner does
not adequately explain how the cited paragraphs of Sharif-Ahmadi disclose
or suggest using a set of service profile settings for Internet data
communication occurring over a cellular network to classify data traffic for
different monitored Internet data service activities, as called for in claim 1.
As described above, Sharif-Ahmadi classifies data packets according
to data type (see, e.g., Sharif-Ahmadi ¶ 81). A scheduler, thus, takes
Appeal 2020-004562
Application 12/380,758

9
different mobile traffic requirements into account in selecting which packets
to transmit when over a wireless link, based on data type and when a packet
arrives at the queue dedicated to its data type (id. ¶ 80).
We agree with Appellant that there is nothing in the cited portions of
Sharif-Ahmadi that discloses or suggests classifying data traffic using profile
settings that are network-specific and, therefore, nothing that discloses or
suggests “according to the first set of service profile settings, classify[ing]
data traffic associated with each of a plurality of monitored Internet data
service activities and the at least one cellular network,” as recited in claim 1.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). For the same reasons, we also do not
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 203, 204, 206–209,
211, 212, 216, 220–223, 240–246, 250, 255, 258, and 271. Cf. In re Fritch,
972 F.2d 1260, 1266 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (“dependent claims are nonobvious if
the independent claims from which they depend are nonobvious”).
Dependent Claims 210, 217, 218, 224–231, 233, 234, 272, and 275
Each of claims 210, 217, 218, 224–231, 233, 234, 272, and 275
ultimately depends from independent claim 1. The rejections of these
dependent claims do not cure the deficiency in the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1. Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections
of claims 210, 217, 218, 224–231, 233, 234, 272, and 275 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1.
Appeal 2020-004562
Application 12/380,758

10
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 203,
204, 206–
209, 211,
212, 216,
220–223,
240–246,
250, 255,
258, 271
103(a) Montemurro,
Sharif-Ahmadi,
Swan
1, 203, 204,
206–209,
211, 212,
216, 220–
223, 240–
246, 250,
255, 258,
271
210 103(a) Montemurro,
Sharif-Ahmadi,
Swan, Feuerstein
210
217, 218,
224–231,
233, 234,
272, 275
103(a) Montemurro,
Sharif-Ahmadi,
Swan, Examiner’s
Official Notice
217, 218,
224–231,
233, 234,
272, 275
Overall
Outcome
1, 203, 204,
206–212,
216–218,
220–231,
233, 234,
240–246,
250, 255,
258, 271,
272, 275

REVERSED