Ex Parte Nagy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 6, 2016

13027084 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/027,084 02/14/2011
23363 7590 04/08/2016
Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP
POBOX29001
Glendale, CA 91209-9001
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Oliver Nagy
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.
66925/K537 6111
EXAMINER
RAHMAN, SM AZIZUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2458
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/08/2016 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):
pair_cph@firsttofile.com
pto@lrrc.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLIVER NAGY, REFI-TUGRUL GUNER,
and ERWIN TOPLAK
Appeal2014-006570
Application 13/027,084
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-006570
Application 13/027,084
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a second rejection
of claims 1-12 in a non-final action dated October 10, 2013 ("Non-Final
Act."). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to "[a] network node for an ad-hoc
network having a plurality of network nodes of the same type, which provide
one another with application services via wireless connections." (Abstract.)
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A network node for an ad-hoc network having a plurality of
network nodes of the same type, the plurality of network nodes
providing one another with application services via wireless con-
nections, wherein the network node is configured to
locally generate a list of all application services provided
thereto by other network nodes, the list including associated
quality classes, and
make said list available to other network nodes with said qual-
ity classes, and wherein
said quality class is at least dependent on a number of consec-
utive network nodes via which the application service is pro-
vided, and the quality class specified by a last of said network
nodes.
1 Appellants identify Kapsch TrafficCom AG as the real party in interest.
(See App. Br. 1.)
2
Appeal2014-006570
Application 13/027,084
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Illikkal et al. US 7,110,356 B2 Sept. 19, 2006
Kovacs et al.
Michaelis et al.
US 7,516,201 B2
US 8,478,820 B2
THE REJECTION
Apr. 7, 2009
July 2, 2013
1. Claims 1-12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Michaelis, Kovacs, and Illikkal. (See
Non-Final Act. 3-8.)
APPELLANTS' CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue that the rejections were improper for the following
reasons:
1. "[N]one of the cited references, alone or in combination, teach
or suggest 'locally generate a list of all application services provided thereto
by other network nodes,"' as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 3.)
2. "[N]one of the cited references, alone or in combination, teach
or suggest "the list [of all application services] include[ s] associated quality
classes,"' as recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 4.)
3. "[N]one of the cited references, alone or in combination, teach
or suggest 'wherein said quality class is at least dependent on a number of
consecutive network nodes via which the application service is provided,
and the quality class specified by a last of said network nodes,"' as recited in
claim 1. (App. Br. 5---6.)
3
Appeal2014-006570
Application 13/027,084
4. With respect to claim 1, "there is no teaching or suggestion ...
anywhere in Illikkal that the 'quality class is ... dependent on ... the quality
class specified by a last of said network nodes.'" (App. Br. 6.)
5. The combination does not teach or suggest "wherein the
connection quality is dependent on movement vectors of the last wireless
connection," as recited in claim 4. (See App. Br. 7 .)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3 and 5--12
"locally generate a list of all application services
provided thereto by other network nodes"
The Examiner cited Fig. 4A of Michaelis as teaching this limitation.
(See Non-Final Act. 3.) Item 420A of that figure is a "means for generating,
at the wireless node, a prioritized list of services offered by the wireless
node based on one or more own services of the wireless node and the
received one or more advertisements of services." Appellants assert that
"[i]t is clear that [this] language refers to 'a list of services offered by the
[same] wireless node,' and [ n Jot 'by other network nodes,' as recited in
claim 1. "' (App. Br. 3.) We agree with the Examiner. Michaelis' list is "of
services offered by the wireless node" and "the received one or more
advertisements of services," the latter of which are "application services
provided thereto by other network nodes." (See Michaelis 6:63-7: 11.)
"the list including associated quality classes"
The Examiner cited the following portion of Kovacs as teaching this
limitation: "Links are characterized by a set of physically related attributes
identifying the quality of service links can support, such as the maximum
bandwidth allowed and the maximum and minimum transport delay." (Non-
4
Appeal2014-006570
Application 13/027,084
Final Act. 3, quoting Kovacs 2:7-11.) Appellants argue that "the quality of
service of Kovacs is associated with the links themselves and not with the -- --
'application services."' (App. Br. 4.) Appellants' argument is not
persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim. The
claim simply recites "quality classes" that are "associated with" the
applications, and Appellants' Specification explains that the relevant
"quality" is the quality of the link, not the quality of the application service
itself. (See, e.g., Spec. i-f 26 (explaining that the "quality class" is based on
the number of hops, the availability, and the available bandwidth).)
Therefore, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, Kovacs teaches or
suggests the argued claim limitation.
"wherein said quality class is at least dependent
on a number of consecutive network nodes via which
the application service is provided, and the quality class
specified by a last of said network nodes"
Regarding this limitation, the Examiner looks to Illikkal, which
teaches reserving resources along a path using control packets in order to
assure a desired quality level for data packets subsequently forwarded along
the path. (See Non-Final Act. 4, citing Illikkal 1 :54---62.) Appellants assert
that "it is the 'control packets' that are being sent to each successive node,
and not the list of application services." (App. Br. 5.) This argument is
unpersuasive because the subject claim language simply requires that the
quality class be dependent on the number of nodes and that it be specified by
the last node. In the Examiner's combination, the quality of the path is
dependent on the number of nodes (as in the instant Specification, where
path quality is based on the number of "hops") and the reserving node (the
"last" node) would have specified the quality by reserving the necessary
5
Appeal2014-006570
Application 13/027,084
resources. The control packets are only sent to ensure sufficient resources
for the subsequent transmission of data packets, such as those used in the
delivery of the application services. We agree with the Examiner's finding
that Illikkal, in combination with the other cited references, teaches or
suggests the disputed limitation.
For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the Examiner's analysis
regarding claim 1 and, therefore, sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of
that claim, as well as the Section 103 rejections of claims 2-3 and 5-12, for
which no additional arguments are offered.
Claim 4
"wherein the connection quality is dependent on
movement vectors of the last wireless connection"
In rejecting claim 4, the Examiner finds that "Illikkal ... teaches if the
node address is on the list of the path then the wavelength is reserved on the
node and the node hardware is provisioned to allow the transfer of data
packets along the desired path in a direction from the source node to the sink
node (end node)," and that "the wavelength here is describing the connection
quality while moving the data packets in the direction from the source path
to the end path is referring to the movement vector." (Ans. 6-7.) Appellants
argue that wavelengths or bandwidth along a path fails to teach connection
quality being dependent on movement vectors, as claimed. (See App. Br. 7.)
We agree with Appellants. In particular, in light of the Specification, in
which the "movement vector" is associated with physical movement of a
6
Appeal2014-006570
Application 13/027,084
given mobile node, 2 we conclude that the broadest reasonable interpretation
of "movement vectors" does not encompass "moving the data packets in the
direction from the source path to the end path." Accordingly, on this record,
we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 4.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-3 and 5-12 are affirmed. The rejection of
claim 4 is reversed.
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-IN-PART
2 See Spec. i-f 29 ("The connection quality Qij can preferably also take the
movement vectors 7 of the partners of the respective wireless connection 2
into consideration."); Fig. 1 (depicting movement vectors 7).
7