Ex Parte Hus

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

11576751 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
11/576,751 04/05/2007 Olivier J-M. Hus
24737 7590 03/29/2019
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2004P02312WOUS 5415
EXAMINER
KELLEY, STEVEN SHAUN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/29/2019 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVIER J-M. HUS
Appeal2018-006673
Application 11/576,751
Technology Center 2600
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
BETH Z. SHAW, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-28, 30-37, and 43, which are all the claims pending in
this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. (App. Br. 3).
2 Claims 2, 14, 29, and 38--42 have been previously canceled.
Appeal2018-006673
Application 11/576,751
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's invention relates to a radio communications gateway
between a mobile telecommunications network and a Bluetooth® network
(see Spec. 1 :5-8).
Claim 1, which is illustrative of the invention, reads as follows:
1. A radio communications gateway between
networks, the radio communications gateway comprising:
a source receiver configured to receive a source radio
signal over a source communications network using a first
communications protocol;
a peer transmitter configured to transmit a peer radio
signal over a peer communications network using a second
communications protocol different than the first
communications protocol;
and an interface configured to forward content
represented by the source radio signal from the source receiver
to the peer transmitter for representation in the peer radio
signal,
wherein the source radio signal includes a multi-bit
source quality of service indicator specifying a signal quality of
the source communications network in accordance with the first
communications protocol,
wherein the interface is configured to convert the multi-
bit source quality of service indicator into a single bit
representation of the multi-bit source quality of service
indicator in accordance with the second communications
protocol and the peer transmitter is configured to transmit the
single bit representation of the source quality of service
indicator with the content in the peer radio signal in an unused
field of a data packet based on the content carried by the peer
radio signal, and
wherein a terminal that receives the peer radio signal
adapts communications in the peer communications network
2
Appeal2018-006673
Application 11/576,751
based on the representation of the source quality of service
indicator.
The Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-28, and 30-37 under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over 3G and Bluetooth® standards
documents (3G and Bluetooth® standards documents, Prior Art standards
documents described in Appellant's Application relating to 3G and
Bluetooth® networks (Admitted Prior Art, Figure 3 of Appellant's
Application, Spec. pp. 10-12)), Jouppi (US 7,383,048 B2; iss. June 3, 2008),
in view of either Petrovic (US 2005/0220040 Al; pub. Oct. 6, 2005) or
Herrmann (US 2006/0092869 Al; pub. May 4, 2006). Final Act. 2-14. 3
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner finds 3G and Bluetooth® standards
documents disclose all the recited elements of the claim but not "a system
and methods for forwarding data (via a mobile terminal MT) from a mobile
node in a first network to a unit in a second network, where the data
forwarded to the second network includes quality of service (QoS)
information from the first network," for which the Examiner relies on
Jouppi. See Final Act. 2-5. The Examiner cites passages in columns 5, 8,
and 10 of Jouppi, which correspond to Figures 2 and 4, as disclosing
transmission of the QoS information between networks. Final Act. 4--5.
The Examiner further finds Figure 4 of Petrovic and paragraph 20 of
Herrmann each teach "wherein a terminal that receives the peer radio signal
3 Independent claim 43 is omitted from the statement of the rejection
inadvertently.
3
Appeal2018-006673
Application 11/576,751
adapts communications in the peer communications network based on the
representation of the source quality of service indicator" recited in claim 1.
Final Act. 5---6.
Appellant contends the applied references fail to disclose "the peer
transmitter is configured to transmit the single bit representation of the
source quality of service indicator with the content in the peer radio signal in
an unused field of a data packet," as described in Appellant's Specification.
App. Br. 13-14 (citing Spec. 5:13-19). With respect to the teachings of 3G
and Bluetooth® standards documents, Appellant specifically asserts:
Thus when the Office Action states that Fig. 3 describes
an unused field, the Examiner fails to show that said unused
field is used for a source quality of service indicator. In fact, the
3G and Bluetooth standards documents do not describe such a
use of the unused fields. Using the unused field for the source
quality of service indicator is actually one of the problems
solved by the present application. There is nothing in the cited
references that discloses using the unused field "to transmit
the single bit representation of the source quality of service
indicator," as recited in claim 1. The Office Action essentially
states that the 3G and Bluetooth standards documents describe
an unused field, therefore the 3G and Bluetooth standards
documents disclose using the unused field "to transmit the
single bit representation of the source quality of service
indicator," as recited in claim 1. But this is simply not the case.
According to claim 1, a particular feature of the unused field is
claimed, not simply the existence of an unused field, that is "the
single bit representation of the source quality of service
indicator."
App. Br. 15.
The Examiner responds by pointing out the relevant portions of
Appellant's Specification and the admitted prior art as follows:
4
Appeal2018-006673
Application 11/576,751
It appears that Appellant is arguing that as Fig. 4 shows
the instant invention, that any description relating to Fig. 4
cannot be considered as Prior Art. It is noted that the cited
portion of the specification teaches "conventionally ...
ignoring the FLOW field". Therefore, although Appellant is
asserting that this cited potion of the specification is referring to
Fig. 4 (and is therefore not "Prior Art), the use of the word
"conventionally" indicates that it is the Prior Art data packets
shown in Fig. 3 which are being referenced. Additionally, the
use of the word "ignoring" indicates that the FLOW bit filed is
"unused", as ignoring data is not using data. Therefore, the
instant specification does in fact teach that the 1 bit FLOW field
as shown in Prior Art Fig. 3 is "unused", as recited.
Ans. 3. The Examiner further finds that Jouppi also discloses an unused
field to transmit a single bit QoS indicator. Id. ("the feature of a source
quality of service indicator is taught in Jouppi (as the Prior Art is relied upon
to show an unused 1 bit field)").
Based on a review of 3G and Bluetooth® standards documents and
Jouppi, we are persuaded by Appellant's contention that the Examiner has
not explained how transmitting the QoS information in Jouppi or the cited
portions of the 3G and Bluetooth® standards documents meet the claimed
"to transmit the single bit representation of the source quality of service
indicator with the content in the peer radio signal in an unused field of a data
packet." 4 As further pointed out by Appellant (Reply Br. 2), ignoring the
FLOW field may be considered conventional, but replacing that field with a
single bit quality of service indicator is not. According to Appellant, the
claim 1 recites "using an unused field for transmitting a 'single bit
representation of the source quality of service indicator."' Id. We also agree
4 We do not address Appellant's other contentions because this contention is
dispositive of the issue on appeal.
5
Appeal2018-006673
Application 11/576,751
with Appellant's assertion that the Examiner has not clearly identified any
teachings in the cited passage in column 4 of Jouppi that defines a single bit
representation of the quality of service indicator that is presented in an
unused field of a data packet. See Reply Br. 2-3. In other words, the
Examiner has not explained how the teachings of Jouppi with respect to a
priority bit (see Jouppi 4:31--41) relates to the disputed claim limitation.
Therefore, in view of the record before us, Appellant's arguments
have persuaded us of error in the Examiner's position with respect to the
rejection of independent claim 1 and independent claims 13, 21, 22, 28, and
3 7, which recite similar limitations. We, therefore, do not sustain the
rejection of claims 1, 13, 21, 22, 28, and 37, as well as claims 2, 3, 5-12,
15-20, 23-27, 30-36, and 43 dependent therefrom.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-13, 15-
28, 30-37, and 43.
REVERSED
6