Ex Parte Mahmood et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 26, 2019

10682088 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. 10/682,088 114746 7590 Apple Inc. -- FKM 150 Broadway Suite 702 FILING DATE 10/10/2003 06/28/2019 New York, NY 10038 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Hamid Mahmood 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. 77682-519 9198 EXAMINER ABELSON, RONALD B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/28/2019 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): mmarcin@fkmiplaw.com fball@fkmiplaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte HAMID MAHMOOD and WILLIAM GAGE Appeal2017-009962 Application 10/682,088 1 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, 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, 2, 4--14, 16-27, and 31. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We reverse. INVENTION The invention relates to quality-of-service traffic in a wireless communications system. Spec. 3: 13-14. Claim 1 ( with emphases) is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 According to Appellants, Apple Inc. is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2. 2 Claims 3, 15, and 28-30 are canceled. App. Br. 16, 18, 21. Appeal2017-009962 Application 10/682,088 1. A method of routing packets from a wireless communications terminal, comprising the steps of, in the terminal: receiving, via a respective wireless link from at least one of a plurality of wireless access nodes forming a network, network information relating to links between the nodes; selecting a multi-node route via the network for packets from the terminal in dependence upon the network information and information dependent upon wireless communications between the terminal and at least one of the nodes; supplying packets with route information relating to the selected multi-node route, wherein the route information defines each of the nodes along the selected multi-node route; and receiving and monitoring network information to determine a status of the selected multi-node route and, selectively in dependence upon the determined status indicating that a value of at least one parameter of the network information has crossed a route re-computation threshold, selecting a new multi-node route via the network for packets from the terminal, wherein the selecting the new multi-node route is performed at a time when the selected multi-node route is available to route packets from the terminal to the network and wherein the selecting the new multi-node route is performed autonomously in the terminal without any co-ordination with the nodes of the network. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 11-14, 16, 17, and 21-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as being unpatentable over the combination ofEbata (US 2002/0173310 Al; published Nov. 21, 2002), Kulikov (US 2002/0122410 Al; published Sept. 5, 2002), and Johnson (David B. Johnson & David A. 2 Appeal2017-009962 Application 10/682,088 Maltz, Dynamic Source Routing in Ad Hoc Wireless Networks, 1-18 (1996) ). 3 Ans. 2-9. Claims 8 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ebata, Kulikov, Johnson, and Shoaib (US 2003/0193910 Al; filed Apr. 11, 2002). Ans. 9-10. Claims 9 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination ofEbata, Kulikov, Johnson, and Miernik (US 7,155,215 Bl; filed Jan. 4, 2002). Ans. 10-11. Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ebata, Kulikov, Johnson, and Seguin (US 7,206,295 B2; filed Apr. 4, 2001). Ans. 11-12. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ebata, Kulikov, Johnson, and Watanabe (US 2003/0091001 Al; filed Nov. 14, 2002). Ans. 12-13. ANALYSIS The Examiner finds Johnson teaches monitoring the range between hops and if any of the hops are out of range, then the route can no longer be used, which the Examiner maps to the limitation "without any co-ordination with the nodes of the network" recited in claims 1, 14, 24, and 27. Final Act. 6-7 (citing JohnsonÂ§ 3.1); Ans. 6-7. Appellants argue Johnson teaches performing route recovery in an intermediary node, whereas claims 1, 14, 24, and 27 require the terminal to perform route selection autonomously and "without any co-ordination with 3 In this Decision, when we refer to Johnson, all citations are to section numbers rather than page numbers. 3 Appeal2017-009962 Application 10/682,088 the nodes of the network." App. Br. 7-8 (citing JohnsonÂ§Â§ 3.1, 3.2, Abstract; Spec. 3: 19--4: 16, Fig. 1 ); Reply Br. 4---6. We agree with Appellants. Moreover, the cited portions of Johnson relied upon by the Examiner teaches monitoring the range between hops and if any of the hops are out of range, then the route can no longer be used. Johnson Â§ 3 .1 ( cited at Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 6-7). However, the cited portions of Johnson fail to teach the terminal to performing route selection autonomously and "without any co- ordination with the nodes of the network" as required by claims 1, 14, 24, and 27. JohnsonÂ§Â§ 3.1, 3.2, Abstract (cited at App. Br. 7-8). In particular, Â§ 3.2 of Johnson teaches coordinating with multiple notes of the network in steps (1}-(4). JohnsonÂ§ 3.2. Johnson also teaches enlisting the aid of other hosts in forwarding a packet to its destination. Johnson, Abstract. The Examiner does not provide an explanation as to how Johnson's monitoring the range between hops and if any of the hops are out of range, then the route can no longer be used teaches "without any co-ordination with the nodes of the network" as required by claims 1, 14, 24, and 27; rather, the Examiner reasoning is conclusory. JohnsonÂ§ 3.1 (cited at Final Act. 6-7; Ans. 6-7). Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of: (1) independent claims 1, 14, 24, and 27; and (2) dependent claims 2, 4--13, 16-23, 25, 26, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4--14, 16-27, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103. 4 Appeal2017-009962 Application 10/682,088 REVERSED 5