Ex Parte Li et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 9, 2019

14587197 - (D) (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. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 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. § 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.
§ 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. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
5