Ex Parte Herle

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 28, 2014

10284578 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SUDHINDRA P. HERLE
____________________

Appeal 2012-001850
Application 10/284,578
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and HUNG
H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.2

1 The Real Party in Interest is Samsung Electronics Co., LTD.
Appeal 2012-001850
Application 10/284,578

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s Invention
Appellant’s invention relates to an apparatus and method for
providing quality of service (QoS) management in a wireless mobile station,
such as a mobile phone. Spec 1:6-8. According to Appellant, a quality of
service (QoS) controller is scheduled to provide a radio link from the
wireless mobile station to the wireless network. The radio link has a set of
quality of service (QoS) parameters that support transmission and reception
of data packets in a protocol that requires the set of quality of service (QoS)
parameters. Id. at 4:6-13, and Abstract.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 10, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative of Appellant’s invention and is reproduced with disputed
limitations emphasized below:
1. For use in a wireless network capable of
communicating with wireless mobile stations located in a
coverage area of the wireless network, an apparatus for
providing quality of service (QoS) management within a
wireless mobile station, said apparatus comprising:
a quality of service (QoS) controller implemented within
said wireless mobile station, said quality of service (QoS)
controller configured to:
identify a protocol in use by data packets based
upon protocol identifier data comprised within the data packets;
determine, based upon the protocol, if the data
packets require a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters;

2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed April 15, 2011
(“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed September 12, 2011 (“Reply Br.”);
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 12, 2011 (“Ans.”); and original
Specification filed October 31, 2002 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2012-001850
Application 10/284,578

3

provide a radio link from said wireless mobile
station to said wireless network, said radio link having the set
of quality of service (QoS) parameters that support transmission
and reception of the data packets in the protocol that requires
said set of quality of service (QoS) parameters; and
terminate the radio link from said wireless mobile
station to said wireless network.

Evidence Considered
Phillips US 6,400,712 B1 June 4, 2002
Li et al., US 6,654,363 B1 November 25, 2003
Spaling et al., US 6,985,739 B2 January 10, 2006

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1-9 and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Li and Spaling. Ans. 5-9.
(2) Claims 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li, Spaling, and Phillips. Ans. 9-13.

Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting: (1) claims 1-9 and 17-21 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li and Spaling; and (2)
claims 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li,
Spaling, and Phillips. In particular, the appeal turns on whether Li teaches a
“QoS controller configured to … determine, based upon the protocol, if the
data packets require a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters,” as recited
in Appellant’s independent claims 1 and 17, and similarly recited in
independent claim 10. App. Br. 13-21; Reply Br. 2-4.
Appeal 2012-001850
Application 10/284,578

4

ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1 and 17, the Examiner finds
Li discloses a similar system and method comprising a quality of service
(QoS) controller implemented within a wireless mobile station, and
configured to perform all the recited functions, except for terminating a
radio link from the wireless mobile station to the wireless network. Ans. 5-6
(citing Li, col. 4, ll. 1-15; col. 7, ll. 52-66; col. 8, ll. 19-22; FIG. 1). While
such a termination feature is inherent in every communication between a
wireless mobile station (i.e., mobile phone) and a base station in every
wireless network, the Examiner nevertheless cites Spaling for an explicit
disclosure of Appellant’s missing feature of terminating a radio link from a
wireless mobile station to a wireless network. Id. at 6 (citing Spaling, col. 2,
ll. 43-67). Based on these factual findings, the Examiner concludes that “[i]t
would have been obvious … to include the feature of terminating the radio
link from said wireless mobile station to said wireless network as shown in
Spaling et al. in order to make use of network resource more efficient.” Id.
Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding
Spaling. Nor does Appellant argue against the Examiner’s rationale for
combining Li and Spaling. Instead, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s
factual findings regarding Li. In particular, the Examiner acknowledges Li
discloses an IP QoS management on an IP service delivered over a wireless
link and the quality of service (QoS) requirements are stored in a TOS/DS3

3 TOS stands for Type of Services, and DS stands for Differentiated
Services used to identify the approach to qualify of service (QoS) as per
Internet Protocol (IP) service. See Li, col. 5, ll. 25-27.
Appeal 2012-001850
Application 10/284,578

5

field in an IP header of each IP packet along with a specific type of protocol
used by the IP packet. App. Br. 16 (citing Li, col. 7, ll. 53-55 and 57-67).
Nevertheless, the Examiner contends Li does not teach a “QoS controller
configured to … determine, based upon the protocol, if the data packets
require a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters,” as recited in
independent claims 1 and 17. Id. at 17 (emphasis in the original).
In support of this contention, Appellant asserts that an IP header of
each data packet as disclosed by Li contains both: (1) the protocol and (2)
the QoS requirements and, because of that disclosure, Li does not
contemplate using the protocol to determine the QoS parameters since the
QoS requirements are already included. Id. at 16. In addition,
Because the SRID includes the protocol field indicating the
protocol used by the IP packet and the TOS/DS field indicating
the QoS requirements of the IP packet, the QoS requirements of
the IP packet may be set independently of the protocol used by
the IP packet. Thus, the SRID of Li cannot be construed to
teach determining, based upon the protocol, if the data packets
require a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters.

Id. Consequently, according to Appellant, “Li contains no teaching or
suggestion that the protocol is used to determine QoS requirements, and Li
does not teach or suggest using the protocol to determine if the data packets
require that a set of QoS parameters be used.” Id. at 17 (emphasis in the
original).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. At the outset, we
note that Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of
Appellant’s claims 1 and 17. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, claims 1
and 17 do not require using the protocol to determine if the data packets
require a set of QoS parameters; rather, claims 1 and 17 simply recite, inter
Appeal 2012-001850
Application 10/284,578

6

alia, “identifying a protocol in use by data packets” and then “determining,
based upon the [identified] protocol, if the data packets require a set of
quality of service (QoS) parameters.” In other words, once the protocol type
of the data packets is identified, the QoS controller determines if those data
packets have any QoS requirement, as described by Appellant’s own
Specification. See Spec. 20:6-18, and FIG. 3.
Appellant’s FIG. 3 is reproduced below with additional markings for
illustration.

FIG. 3 shows an operation of a QoS controller.
As shown in Appellant’s FIG. 3 and described in Appellant’s own
Specification, the QoS controller implemented at a wireless mobile station
(MS) is configured to identify a protocol type of the data packets and then
determine if the outgoing data packets have any special QoS requirement.
See Spec. 20:6-18, and FIG. 3, step 310.
Even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s claims 1 and 17 require
using the protocol to determine if the data packets require a set of QoS
Appeal 2012-001850
Application 10/284,578

7

parameters, we agree with the Examiner that a service reference
identification (SRID) as disclosed by Li can be reasonably viewed as a
protocol since SRID is a function of (SA, DA, SP, DP, Protocol, and
TOS/DS) where SA is an IP source address, DA is an IP destination address,
SP is a TCP source port, DP is a TCP destination port, Protocol is the
protocol used by the IP packet, and TOS/DS is the QoS parameters stored in
the TOS/DS field. Ans. 14 (citing Li, col. 7, ll. 52-67). We also agree with
the Examiner that the disputed term “determining, based upon the
[identified] protocol, if the data packets require a set of quality of service
(QoS) parameters” can be construed to encompass the QoS requirement
parameters included the TOS/DC field in the IP header of each IP packet and
used for the QoS management on an IP service delivered over a wireless link
as disclosed by Li. Id. 14. Consequently, we adopt as our own the
Examiner’s findings and conclusions forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer. Id. at 13-14.
For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us of any
error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 17. Contrary,
we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s
finding that the combined teachings of Li and Spaling would have suggested
the subject matter of Appellant’s independent claims 1 and 17. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 17.
With respect to independent claim 10, Appellant reiterates the same
arguments presented against claims 1 and 17. App. Br. 19-20. For the same
reasons discussed, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim
10.
Appeal 2012-001850
Application 10/284,578

8

With respect to dependent claims 2-9, 12-16, and 18-21, Appellant
presents no separate patentability arguments. App. Br. 19 and 21. For the
same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 2-9, 12-16, and 18-21.

CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting: (1) claims 1-9 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Li and Spaling; and (2) claims 10-16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li, Spaling, and Phillips.

DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21.
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

dm