Ex Parte Kneckt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 29, 2018

14379321 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/379,321 08/18/2014 72165 7590 08/31/2018 BANNER & WITCOFF, LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT 004770 1100 13TH STREET SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Jarkko Kneckt 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. 004770.02335\US 1004 EXAMINER CASTANEYRA, RICARDO H ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/31/2018 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): PTO-72165@bannerwitcoff.com Nokia.IPR@nokia.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte JARKKO KNECKT, MIKA KASSLIN, and ENG HWEE ONG Appeal2018-002240 Application 14/379,321 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-8, 10, 11, 17-24, 26, and 27. Claims 9, 12-16, 25, and 28-35 have been canceled. See Appeal Br. 9-14 (Claims App'x). We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies OY. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal2018-002240 Application 14/379,321 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants 'Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to "facilitating scanning for a wireless network." Spec. 1:3--4. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 1. A method comprising: monitoring transmission of messages in a wireless network; determining that a transmission rate of messages is not sufficient if the following conditions are true: detecting no message within a minimum transmission time interval and determining that a next target beacon transmission time is not within a predefined time interval after the expiry of the minimum transmission time interval; and upon determining that the transmission rate of messages is not sufficient, causing an access point of the wireless network to transmit a scanning message. References The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims: Jeong et al. ("Jeong") Ruuska Rittle et al. ("Rittle") Chhabra US 2006/0111103 Al US 2007 /0060067 Al US 2007/0286136 Al US 2008/0123558 Al Rejections May 25, 2006 Mar. 15, 2007 Dec. 13, 2007 May 29, 2008 Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 24, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rittle and Chhabra. Final Act. 5-24. 2 Appeal2018-002240 Application 14/379,321 Claims 3 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rittle, Chhabra, and Jeong. Final Act. 24--26. Claims 6 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Rittle, Chhabra, and Ruuska. Final Act. 26-29. ANALYSIS Appellants do not substantively argue the claims separately, but instead rely on the same arguments for all claims. See Appeal Br. 4--7; Reply Br. 2--4. In accordance with 37 C.F.R. Â§ 4I.37(c)(l)(iv), we select independent claim 1 as the representative claim. Remaining claims 2-8, 10, 11, 17-24, 26, and 27 stand or fall together with claim 1. We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants' arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants' conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth in the Examiner's Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. Final Act. 2-29; Ans. 2-34. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. First Contention Appellants contend the combination of Rittle and Chhabra is improper. Appeal Br. 4--6; Reply Br. 2--4. Appellants argue the combination is improper because "[ o ]ne of ordinary skill in the art would 3 Appeal2018-002240 Application 14/379,321 have no motivation to modify Rittle by Chhabra." Appeal Br. 4. Appellants argue: The Rittle periodical advertisement message transm1ss10ns sufficiently advertise or announce their presence and related service information on the network, and there is no factual evidence showing that transmitting extra advertisement messages[, as taught by Chhabra,] (in addition to the periodical advertisement messages the Rittle node already sends) would improve Rittle in any aspects. Appeal Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 2. We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner finds Rittle teaches that the period at which the second ad hoc interface is turned on/off can vary based on the node's current application set or a current operation mode of applications currently running on the node. Ans. 27 ( citing Rittle ,r 51 ). The Examiner finds Chhabra teaches generating and transmitting a message, such as a beacon or probe-request, if a message (e.g., a probe response) is not received during the pre-TBTT (target beacon transmission time) and the TBTT plus TBTT delay time frames. Ans. 29 (citing Chhabra ,r 62). We agree with the Examiner that "the combination of Rittle in view of Chhabra results in managing or adjusting the time intervals of Rittle' s node to transmit the subsequent messages, and not in transmitting an extra message besides the periodical message as argued by the Appellant[s]." Ans. 29 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner reasons "it would have been obvious to one [ ofJ skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the invention of Rittle, and have the features, as taught by Chhabra, in order to discover services available from other stations within the network." Ans. 32 (citing Chhabra ,r,r 13, 62). The Examiner's findings are reasonable because the skilled artisan would "be able to fit the 4 Appeal2018-002240 Application 14/379,321 teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle" since the skilled artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,420,421 (2007). Appellants do not present sufficient evidence to show that the resulting arrangement was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418-19). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred. Appellants further argue the combination is improper because modifying Rittle with the teachings of Chhabra would change the principle of operation of Rittle. Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants argue: [W]ith the alleged modification, since the prospective peer node of the modified Rittle transmits extra advertisement messages in addition to the periodical advertisement messages, the prospective peer node of the modified Rittle must keep the power ON for a longer time period. Such longer tum-on time would be contrary to the Rittle goals to provide "energy-efficient prospective peer discovery" and to "conserve power." Rittle explicitly discloses that the provider node turns off its ad hoc interface when the provider node determines that there is no nearby client nodes (when the provider node does not receive a response message from any client nodes), and one of ordinary skill in the art would have had no reason to force the provider node of Rittle to transmit another advertisement message, as does Chhabra's station. Appeal Br. 6 (citing Rittle Title; ,r,r 7, 24--25, 45, 48); see also Reply Br. 2. Appellants argue "the alleged combination changes the principle of operation of Rittle" because "the prospective peer provider node would no 5 Appeal2018-002240 Application 14/379,321 longer tum off its second ad hoc interface at the end of the second time period a when the prospective peer node does not receive a response message from any potential client nodes during the time period a .... " Reply Br. 4 ( citing Rittle ,r 51 ). We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. "The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference ... Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art." In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCP A 1981 ). As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Rittle and Chhabra results in managing or adjusting the time intervals of Rittle' s node to transmit the subsequent messages. Ans. 29. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the transmission of the probe request upon determining that a message was not received during the pre-TBTT and the TBTT plus TBTT delay time period, as taught by Chhabra, would occur during Rittle's time interval a and would not replace Rittle's time interval B during which the second ad hoc interface is turned off, as argued by Appellants. Second Contention Appellants contend the combination of Rittle and Chhabra fails to teach or suggest "upon determining that the transmission rate of messages is not sufficient, causing an access point of the wireless network to transmit a scanning message," as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. Appellants argue since Chhara's station that "sends a probe-request" is a client node that is searching for "a peer ad-hoc station," rather than a provider node, only the client node, rather than the provider 6 Appeal2018-002240 Application 14/379,321 node, of Rittle would have been be modified by Chhara's station that "sends a probe-request." The alleged combination does not have a provider node that may transmit another probe-request if not receiving a response to an earlier probe request as alleged by the Office. Appeal Br. 7. We do not find Appellants' argument persuasive. We agree with the Examiner that Chhabra teaches generating and transmitting a message, such as a beacon or probe-request, if a message ( e.g., a probe response) is not received during the pre-TB TT (target beacon transmission time) and the TBTT plus TBTT delay time frames. Ans. 33 ( citing Chhabra ,r,r 54, 62). We also agree with the Examiner that Chhabra teaches that the disclosed method can be implemented in an access point ( e.g., a provider node). Id. ( citing Chhabra ,r 99). As such, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Rittle and Chhabra teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 and claims 2-8, 10, 11, 17-24, 26, and 27, which fall with claim 1. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-8, 10, 11, 17-24, 26, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 7