Ex Parte Li et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 9, 2019

14587197 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 9, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/587,197 113273 7590 Bejin Bieneman PLC 2000 Town Center Suite 800 Southfield, MI 48075 12/31/2014 01/11/2019 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Frank Li 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. P2014-12-02(01146-0002) 1588 EXAMINER BARON,HENRY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/11/2019 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): docket@b2iplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte FRANK LI and JOHN SCHMID Appeal 2018-006467 Application 14/587,197 1 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, DAVID M. KOHUT, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm the Examiner's rejection of these claims. INVENTION The invention is directed to a telecommunications system with an acknowledgement notification. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. A telecommunications system comprising: 1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Hughes Network Systems, LLC. App. Br. 2. Appeal2018-006467 Application 14/5 87,197 a network device programmed to receive a data signal over a first communication network and in accordance with a first communication protocol, wherein the network device is programmed to generate an acknowledgement command for a remote device to transmit an acknowledgement signal over a second communication network and in accordance with a second communication protocol, wherein the acknowledgement signal acknowledges receipt of the data signal at the network device. Kubsch Tessier REFERENCES US 2011/0096849 Al US 2014/0179306 Al REJECTION AT ISSUE Apr. 28, 2011 June 26, 2014 Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as obvious over the combination of Tessier and Kubsch. Ans. 3---6. ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Tessier and Kubsch teaches or suggests "receiv[ing] a data signal over a first communication network and in accordance with a first communication protocol" and "transmit[ ting] an acknowledgement signal over a second communication network and in accordance with a second communication protocol," "wherein the acknowledgement signal acknowledges receipt of the data signal at the network device," as recited in claim 1? 2 Appeal2018-006467 Application 14/5 87,197 Claim 1 ANALYSIS Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Tessier and Kubsch teaches or suggests the limitations indicated above, in the issue statement, with respect to claim 1. Specifically, Appellants contend that claim 1 should be construed to require two communication networks that are different from one another. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2. As such, Appellants contend that the references provided by the Examiner fail to teach the limitations because the references teach that the packet and acknowledgement of the packet are sent on the same communications network and protocol. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Additionally, Appellants contend that, while Kubsch teaches switching communication links, the switching occurs after an acknowledgement message is received, not before the acknowledgement is sent, as required by the claim. Reply Br. 2. Although on page 2 of the Examiner's Final Rejection, the Examiner suggested that the claims did not require two separate physical networks, it is clear in the Examiner's Answer that the Examiner now interprets the claim as requiring two separate and physical networks. Ans. 7-10. Thus, both Appellants and the Examiner agree as to the interpretation of claim 1. We also agree with this interpretation. The Examiner finds that Tessier teaches sending both a message and an acknowledgement over the same network. Ans. 7. Additionally, the Examiner finds that Kubsch teaches switching communication networks after the acknowledgement is received. Ans. 8. However, the Examiner's citation to Kubsch is not to show that Kubsch directly teaches what is being claimed. Instead, the Examiner cites to Kubsch to show that switching communication networks was a well-known technique at the time of the 3 Appeal2018-006467 Application 14/5 87,197 invention. Ans. 8. As such, the Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to combine Tessier's system of sending an acknowledgement with Kubsch's teaching of switching networks in order to send the acknowledgement, as claimed. Ans. 8. On this record, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred, because Appellants have not addressed the Examiner's specific findings. Instead, Appellants' argument constitutes an attack on the references individually, rather than a challenge to the Examiner's combination of the teachings of the references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA 1981) (one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references). Additionally, although not required, the Examiner has provided a specific motivation for the combination of the references that has also been uncontested by Appellants. Specifically, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified Tessier in the manner taught by Kubsch so that the source device can determine which communication path (i.e., the faster or slower) it wishes to use with expected results. Ans. 8-9. We agree with the Examiner as this is nothing more than a combination of familiar elements (Tessier's communication system with an acknowledgement message and Kubsch's system that teaches switching communication protocols) according to known methods that yields predictable results (the acknowledgement message being sent on a different communication system). See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). For the reasons indicated above, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. 4 Appeal2018-006467 Application 14/5 87,197 Claims 2-20 Appellants argue that the rejection of claims 2-20 should be reversed for the same reasons as indicated above with respect to independent claim 1. App. Br. 9. As such, we sustain the rejection of these claims for the same reasons indicated above. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Tessier and Kubsch teaches or suggests "receiv[ing] a data signal over a first communication network and in accordance with a first communication protocol," and "transmit[ting] an acknowledgement signal over a second communication network and in accordance with a second communication protocol" "wherein the acknowledgement signal acknowledges receipt of the data signal at the network device," as recited in claim 1. SUMMARY The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Tessier and Kubsch is affirmed. 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 5