Nokia Technologies Oy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 16, 2020

2019003332 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2020)

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.
15/122,745 08/31/2016 Mika KASSLIN NC85589-US-PCT 3398
73658 7590 12/16/2020
Nokia of America Corporation
200 South Mathilda Ave
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
EXAMINER
BEYEN, ZEWDU A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2020 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.docketings-mars@nokia.com
sandy.fong@nokia.com
thao.pham@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MIKA KASSLIN, JANNE MARIN,
MIKA RINNE, and ANTTI SORRI
____________

Appeal 2019-003332
Application 15/122,745
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 23–39.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Nokia Technologies Oy as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 1–22 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2019-003332
Application 15/122,745

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention relates to wireless communications, in
particular wireless local area network (WLAN) offloading. Spec. ¶¶ 1–2.
Claims 23, 30, and 37 are independent. Claims 23 and 37, reproduced
below, are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal (emphases added):
23. A method, comprising:
receiving, at a user equipment, information including one
or more thresholds for use when evaluating a selection of a
wireless local area network access point for offloading;
comparing, by the user equipment, a quality of an
access provided by the wireless local area network access
point selected in accordance with the one or more thresholds
to another quality provided by a cellular access point;
reporting, by the user equipment and in response to a
result of comparing indicating the quality of access provided by
the wireless local area network access point is less than the
other quality provided by the cellular access point, the result of
the comparing; and
receiving, by the user equipment in response to the
reporting, additional information including one or more
adjusted thresholds for use when evaluating wireless local area
network access point selection.
37. An apparatus comprising:
at least one processor; and
at least one memory including computer program code,
the at least one memory and the computer program code
configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the
apparatus to perform at least the following:
send information including one or more thresholds for
use by a user equipment when evaluating a selection of a
wireless local area network access point for offloading;
Appeal 2019-003332
Application 15/122,745

3
receive one or more feedback thresholds, when a quality
of experience of an access provided by the wireless local area
network access point selected in accordance with the one or
more thresholds is less than an expected quality of experience
threshold improvement over another quality of experience
provided by a cellular access point; and
send, in response to the receive, additional information
including one or more adjusted thresholds for use when
evaluating wireless local area network access point selection.
Appeal Br. 9, 11–12 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 37–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as
being anticipated by Tomici.3 Final Act. 3–5.
The Examiner rejects claims 23–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Tomici and Sirotkin.4 Final Act. 6–10.
OPINION
35 U.S.C. § 102 Rejection
The Examiner finds that Tomici teaches
receiv[ing] one or more feedback thresholds, when a
quality of experience of an access provided by the wireless
local area network access point selected in accordance with the
one or more thresholds is less than an expected quality of
experience threshold improvement over another quality of
experience provided by a cellular access point
as recited in independent claim 37. Final Act. 3–4 (citing Tomici
¶¶ 128–129, 228). Specifically, the Examiner cites Tomici’s disclosure of a

3 Tomici et al., US 2012/0324100 A1 (pub. Dec. 20, 2012).
4 Sirotkin et al., US 2014/0161103 A1 (pub. June 12, 2014).
Appeal 2019-003332
Application 15/122,745

4
wireless transmit and/or receive unit (WTRU) collecting and reporting
“measurements or metrics about (e.g., performance of) the network (e.g.,
local operating environments)” (Tomici ¶¶ 128–129) and “re-rout[ing] at
least one retransmitted packet from one [access of a network] to another on a
condition that the performance metric relating to packet retransmissions
satisfies a threshold” (id. ¶ 228). See Final Act. 3–4. The Examiner maps
Tomici’s collection and reporting of performance metrics to the recited
“receiv[ing] one or more feedback thresholds.” Ans. 10 (citing Tomici
¶ 128).
Appellant argues that Tomici fails to teach or suggest that the
performance metrics are reported “in response to quality of access provided
by [a] WLAN in accordance with the one or more thresholds [being] less
than an expected quality of experience threshold improvement over another
quality of experience provided by [a] cellular network.” Appeal Br. 8
(emphasis omitted). Appellant further argues that Tomici’s reporting of
performance metrics and rerouting of retransmitted packets are not related to
feedback thresholds. Id.
We agree with Appellant. The Examiner fails to show where Tomici
discloses a feedback threshold, much less a feedback threshold that is
received in response to a determination or comparison regarding quality of
experience. Moreover, although Tomici discloses rerouting retransmitted
packets based on whether a performance metric satisfies a threshold (Tomici
¶ 228), the cited portions of Tomici do not disclose comparing qualities of
experience of different access points to each other. Thus, the Examiner also
fails to show that Tomici discloses determining “when a quality of
experience of an access provided by the wireless local area network access
Appeal 2019-003332
Application 15/122,745

5
point selected in accordance with the one or more thresholds is less than an
expected quality of experience threshold improvement over another quality
of experience provided by a cellular access point.”
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 102 rejection of
independent claim 37, and claims 38 and 39 dependent therefrom, as being
anticipated by Tomici.
35 U.S.C. § 103 Rejection
The Examiner relies upon Tomici for the limitation of “comparing, by
the user equipment, a quality of an access provided by the wireless local area
network access point selected in accordance with the one or more thresholds
to another quality provided by a cellular access point” as recited in
independent claim 23 and similarly recited in independent claim 30. Final
Act. 6 (citing Tomici ¶¶ 128–129, 228). Specifically, the Examiner cites
Tomici’s disclosure of a wireless transmit and/or receive unit (WTRU)
collecting and reporting “measurements or metrics about (e.g., performance
of) the network (e.g., local operating environments)” (Tomici ¶¶ 128–129)
and “re-rout[ing] at least one retransmitted packet from one [access of a
network] to another on a condition that the performance metric relating to
packet retransmissions satisfies a threshold” (id. ¶ 228). See Final Act. 6.
The Examiner maps Tomici’s performance metrics to the recited “quality of
access.” Ans. 4, 6. The Examiner also finds that Sirotkin teaches comparing
qualities of access provided by a WLAN and a cellular network and
reporting a result of the comparison. Id. at 6–8 (citing Sirotkin ¶¶ 61–63,
162, 172–173, 178); Final Act. 7–8 (citing Sirotkin ¶¶ 148, 162, 172–173).
Appellant argues that Tomici “is completely silent on a user
equipment (UE) comparing quality of accesses, one provided by wireless
Appeal 2019-003332
Application 15/122,745

6
local area network (WLAN) and another provided by cellular network.”
Appeal Br. 4. According to Appellant, Tomici’s UE compares performance
metrics relating to packet retransmission with a predefined threshold, rather
than comparing a retransmission metric provided by a WLAN access point
to another retransmission metric provided by a cellular access point. Id. at 5;
Reply Br. 1–2. Appellant further argues that Sirotkin relates to a UE
reporting WLAN measurements to a cellular node and “is completely silent
on a UE comparing quality of accesses provided by WLAN and cellular
network.” Appeal Br. 5; see Reply Br. 2–3.
We agree with Appellant that Tomici fails to teach or suggest the
“comparing” limitation. See Appeal Br. 4–5; Reply Br. 1–2. That limitation
requires comparing a quality of access provided by one access point
(WLAN) to a quality of access provided by another access point (cellular).
While the Examiner finds that Tomici’s performance metrics correspond to
the recited “quality of access,” the cited portions of Tomici do not teach or
suggest comparing performance metrics of different access points to each
other, but rather comparing a performance metric to a threshold. See
Ans. 4, 6; Tomici ¶ 228.
We further agree with Appellant that Sirotkin fails to teach or suggest
a UE comparing qualities of access provided by a WLAN access point and a
cellular access point. See Appeal Br. 5; Reply Br. 2–3. The portions of
Sirotkin cited by the Examiner disclose selective connection of a UE to a
WLAN or cellular access point for load balancing (see, e.g., Sirotkin
¶¶ 62–63, 162), but the Examiner does not explain, and we are unable to
discern, where Sirotkin teaches or suggests that the UE performs a
Appeal 2019-003332
Application 15/122,745

7
comparison of a quality of access provided by the WLAN access point to a
quality of access provided by the cellular access point.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of independent claims 23 and 30, and claims 24–29 and 31–36
dependent therefrom, as being unpatentable over Tomici and Sirotkin.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 37–39 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 is
reversed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 23–36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is
reversed.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

REVERSED

Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. §
References/
Basis Affirmed Reversed
37–39 102 Tomici 37–39
23–36 103 Tomici, Sirotkin 23–36
Overall
Outcome
23–39