Ex Parte Feder et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 2012

11094432 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2012)

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. 11/094,432 03/31/2005 Peretz M. Feder 29250-002100/US 9701 30594 7590 12/19/2012 HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C. P.O. BOX 8910 RESTON, VA 20195 EXAMINER RAMPURIA, SHARAD K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/19/2012 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 PERETZ M. FEDER, AJAY RAJKUMAR, SAMPATH RANGARAJAN, and YOUSIF M. TARGALI ____________________ Appeal 2010-006933 Application 11/094,432 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ALLEN R. MacDONALD, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-006933 Application 11/094,432 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims1, 3-6, 8-11, and 17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). Claims 2, 7, and 12-16 have been cancelled. We AFFIRM. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates to generating at least one trigger at a point-to-point protocol layer indicating a status of a point-to- point link and sending the trigger to a media independent handover entity (Abstract). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim and is reproduced below: 1. A method, comprising: generating at least one point-to-point protocol (PPP) trigger, at a service access-point of a PPP layer, during at least one of a link control phase and a network control phase, the trigger indicating a status of a PPP link; and sending the at least one PPP trigger to a media independent handover entity. wherein the generating step generates the at least one PPP trigger indicating a status of at least one of the link control phase and the network control phase of the link. Appeal 2010-006933 Application 11/094,432 3 References Gupta US 2006/0092864 A1 May 4, 2006 Olvera-Hernandez US 2006/0140150 A1 Jun. 29, 2006 Rejections Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta and Olvera-Hernandez. GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based upon Appellants’ arguments, we select representative claim 1 to decide this appeal for the group consisting of claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 17. (See App. Br. 6-8). We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011). ISSUE 35 U.S.C. § 103(a): claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 17 Appellants assert their invention is not obvious over Gupta and Olvera-Hernandez because Gupta does not disclose “generating at least one point-to-point protocol (PPP) trigger, at a service-access-point of a PPP layer, during at least one of a link control phase and a network control phase, the trigger indicating a status of a PPP link” (App. Br. 6). Specifically, Appellants contend Gupta discloses deterministic and predictive triggers Appeal 2010-006933 Application 11/094,432 4 which are not a point-to-point protocol (PPP) trigger indicating a status of a PPP link (App. Br. 7). Instead, Appellants argue Gupta discloses deterministic / predictive triggers between MIH and a MAC layer, and not a “PPP trigger” indicating a status of a “PPP link” (as “PPP trigger” and “PPP link” are defined in IEEE 802.21)(App. Br. 7 and Reply Br. 2). Issue: Has the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Gupta and Olvera-Hernandez teaches or suggests “generating at least one point-to- point protocol (PPP) trigger, at a service-access- point of a PPP layer, during at least one of a link control phase and a network control phase, the trigger indicating a status of a PPP link” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s findings and conclusions in light of a broad, but reasonable interpretation of the claims, in light of Appellants’ Specification. Indeed, Appellants have not provided definitions for the disputed terms in the Specification. Nor have Appellants presented sufficient evidence or argument to persuade us of error in the interpretation of the disputed terms. Appellants would have us interpret the disputed terms “as defined by IEEE 802.21” (see e.g., App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2); however, the claims as recited are not limited to IEEE 802.21. As such, we are not persuaded the terms should be interpreted as set forth by IEEE 802.21. Accordingly, in light of these interpretations, Appellants have not convinced us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Gupta and Olvera-Hernandez teaches or suggests the invention as recited in Appeal 2010-006933 Application 11/094,432 5 independent claim 1 and claims 3-6, 8-11, and 17, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for obviousness over Gupta and Olvera- Hernandez. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3-6, 8-11, and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gupta and Olvera-Hernandez 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) (2011). AFFIRMED Ke