Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 30, 2014

11044892 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte MARK W. CHENG and LIANGCHI HSU ____________ Appeal 2012-000443 Application 11/044,8921 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, MAHSHID D. SAADAT, and ROBERT E. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1, 4–9, 12–16, 19–24, 27–31, 33, 36, and 38, which are all the pending claims in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Nokia Corporation (App. Br. 1). Appeal 2012-000443 Application 11/044,892 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to a method and apparatus for supporting Quality of Service (QoS) in radio communication systems (see Spec. ¶ 7). Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: receiving, at a first end station, a quality of service (QoS) profile identifier corresponding to a QoS profile of a plurality of QoS parameters over a radio communication system; determining the QoS parameters from a table storing the QoS profile identifier and the QoS parameters using the received identifier, wherein the QoS parameters specify one or more characteristics of one data flow in a communication session established over the radio communication system between the first end station and a second end station, and wherein at least one of the QoS parameters is configured in advance of a request to enable a particular reservation; detecting a deviation from the QoS parameters associated with at least a forward link of the radio communication system; and determining to transmit an alert message to notify a base station within the radio communication system of the deviation associated with at least a forward link of the radio communication system. The Examiner’s Rejection Claim 1, 4–9, 12–16, 19–24, 27–31, 33, 36, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Haumont (US 7,023,825 B1; Apr. 4, 2006), Dunlop (US 2004/0203796 A1; Oct. 14, 2004), and Chen (US 2003/0134655 A1; Jul. 17, 2003). Appeal 2012-000443 Application 11/044,892 3 Appellants’ Contentions 1. Appellants contend the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 because the combination of Haumont, Dunlop, and Chen fails to teach or suggest the claimed step of “determining the QoS parameters . . ., and wherein at least one of the QoS parameters is configured in advance of a request to enable a particular reservation” (App. Br. 10). Appellants explain that Haumont’s use of default profile parameters for some or all of the QoS parameters is not the same as the disputed feature of claim 1 (App. Br. 11). According to Appellants, the recited feature, which eliminates the need to negotiate QoS parameters as described in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the instant Specification, would not be met by Haumont’s providing the default values for some or all of the QoS parameters (App. Br. 12, Reply Br. 2-3). 2. Appellants argues the patentability of independent claims 7–9, 16, 23, 24, and 31 based on the same arguments presented for claim 1 (App. Br. 13). 3. With respect to the remaining claims, Appellant argues that those claims are patentable because of their dependency from the independent claims discussed above (id.). Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest “wherein at least one of the QoS parameters is configured in advance of a request to enable a particular reservation” recited in claim 1? Appeal 2012-000443 Application 11/044,892 4 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’ conclusion. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response, supported by sufficient evidence based on the teachings of Haumont, Dunlop, and Chen, to each of the above-noted contentions raised by Appellants. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (see Ans. 48–52). We concur with the conclusion reached by the Examiner. We specifically agree with the Examiner (Ans. 50) that Haumont provides “default QoS parameters that are inherited by the flow specific profile from the default PDP context profile are configured in advance of a request to activate/enable a particular flow specific profile/reservation” (see Haumont, col. 12, l. 55 to col. 13, l. 18). We also agree with the Examiner that claim 1 does not recite any features related to negotiating QoS parameters or “the QoS profile or profile identifier are configured in advance of a request to enable a particular reservation” (Ans. 51). Thus, the cited portions of Haumont disclose “wherein at least one of the QoS parameters is configured in advance of a request to enable a particular reservation,” as recited in claim 1. Appeal 2012-000443 Application 11/044,892 5 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 4–9, 12–16, 19–24, 27– 31, 33, 36, and 38 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED lp