Ex Parte Mensah et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 14, 2016

13503482 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 14, 2016)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/503,482 04/23/2012 Trevor Mensah RYM-36-2401 7724
23117 7590 12/16/2016
NIXON & VANDERHYE, PC
901 NORTH GLEBE ROAD, 11TH FLOOR
ARLINGTON, VA 22203
EXAMINER
TRAN, JIMMY H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/16/2016 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):
PTOMAIL@nixonvan.com
pair_nixon @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TREVOR MENSAH and STEVEN ROBINSON
Appeal 2016-003013
Application 13/503,482
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. EVANS, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-11, which are all the claims pending and
rejected in the application.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Claims 6 and 12, which have been written in independent form, are
allowable. See Final Act. 11; Response dated May 6, 2015 pp. 3-6;
Advisory Act. 1.
Appeal 2016-003013
Application 13/503,482
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
communications systems. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A process for establishing communication between a server device
connected to a network, and a client device connected to the server device
through a gateway also connected to the network,
wherein the gateway has associated therewith a router and a plurality
of connection servers through which client devices may be connected to the
gateway, and
wherein each connection server reports its recent connections with
respective client devices, and
wherein when a connection request for a target client device is
transmitted from the server to the router, the router requests connection
history of the target device from each of the plurality of connection servers
associated with the gateway, each connection server reporting its connection
history respective to the target client device, and the router attempts
communication with the client device through the connection server with the
most recent connection.
Johnson
Workman
References and Rejection
US 2003/0084162 A1 May 1, 2003
US 2010/0322214 A1 Dec. 23, 2010
Claims 1-5 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Johnson and Workman.
2
Appeal 2016-003013
Application 13/503,482
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellants’
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in finding Johnson and Workman
collectively teach “wherein when a connection request for a target client
device is transmitted from the server to the router, the router requests
connection history of the target device from each of the plurality of
connection servers associated with the gateway, each connection server
reporting its connection history respective to the target client device,” as
recited in independent claim 1 (emphasis added).2 See App. Br. 7-13; Reply
Br. 1^1.
The Examiner maps the claimed “plurality of connection servers” to
Workmans’ access points. See Final Act. 7-8. The Examiner initially cites
Workman’s Figure 3 and paragraphs 44^45 for teaching the italicized claim
limitation. See Final Act. 8. Appellants argue, and we agree, the cited
Workman portions do not teach the disputed claim limitation. See App. Br.
8-10.
In response to Appellants’ arguments, the Examiner cites Workman’s
paragraphs 109, 111, and 112. See Ans. 7-8.3 Workman explains:
[0109] This is a polling application to receive traps, poll, and
store client device associations to WiFi access points across the
network. Each time a client associates with a WiFi access
2 Appellants raise additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3 The Examiner also cites Workman’s paragraphs 24 and 25, but does not
specifically map the disputed claim limitation to such paragraphs. See Ans.
7.
3
Appeal 2016-003013
Application 13/503,482
point, the access point sends an SNMP trap notifying the
application about the client device. Polling of the WiFi access
points, for example, every 15 minutes supplements this data
with other data about the client association session. This data
is processed and rolled up into a database where the data will
remain active, for example for 90 days, and is archived after
that, for example for 1 year.
[0111] A user can query the historical client session data
collected by the WiFi polling application with a client device's
MAC address. If the client device's MAC address was ever
connected to any WiFi device in any network then the client
session data can be retrieved. A user can enter the MAC
address in either the 24 hour or yearly client history text box
and click go to see specific information for that client. [0112]
The results of the 24 hour or yearly client search will return
every session seen by that specific client device in the specified
time period.
Workman 1109, 111 (emphases added).
Therefore, Workman teaches “[a] user can query the historical client
session data collected by the WiFi polling application. ” Workman till
(emphasis added). Workman further explains the WiFi polling application
collects data in the following ways: “Each time a client associates with a
WiFi access point, the access point sends an SNMP trap notifying the
application about the client device. Polling of the WiFi access points, for
example, every 15 minutes supplements this data with other data about the
client association session.” Workman 1109. As a result, under the
Examiner’s mapping, the Examiner has not shown Workman teaches
“wherein when a connection request for a target client device is transmitted
from the server to the router, the router requests connection history of the
target device from each of the plurality of connection servers associated with
the gateway, each connection server reporting its connection history
4
Appeal 2016-003013
Application 13/503,482
respective to the target client device,” as required by claim 1 (emphases
added).
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the rejection, we are constrained by the record to
reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Independent claim 7 recites a claim limitation that is substantively
similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claim 7. Therefore, for
similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 7.
We also reverse the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 2-5 and
8-11, which depend from claims 1 and 7, respectively.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5 and 7-11.
REVERSED
5