Ex Parte Rantapuska et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 26, 2017

10576970 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 26, 2017)

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.
10/576,970 10/20/2008 Olli Rantapuska 042933/454378 7536
10949 7590 06/28/2017
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
EXAMINER
SIDDIQUI, KASHIF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2646
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/28/2017 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):
u sptomail @ alston .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OLLI RANTAPUSKA and JAAKKO TEINILA
Appeal 2015-004068
Application 10/576,9701
Technology Center 2600
Before MASHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, 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. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—19, 22, 24—29, and 31—34.2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed to peer-to-peer communications in mobile
networks. Spec. 1:5—6. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is
reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 20, 21, 23, 30, and 35 have been canceled.
Appeal 2015-004068
Application 10/576,970
receiving data from one mobile terminal selected out of a
set of mobile terminals participating in a quasi peer-to-peer data
communication, wherein said set of mobile terminals are
subscribed in cellular communication networks and said quasi
peer-to-peer data communication is over said cellular
communication networks;
causing, at least in part, a retrieving of information about
destination mobile terminals, wherein said destination mobile
terminals are all mobile terminals of said set of mobile terminals
with the exception of said selected mobile terminal;
replicating said received data for each mobile terminal of
the destination mobile terminals; and
causing, at least in part, a transmission of said replicated
data to said destination mobile terminals in accordance with said
information about said destination mobile terminals.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1, 2, 4—9, 12—19, 22, and 32—34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Traversat et al. (US
2002/0143855 Al; published Oct. 3, 2002) (hereafter “Traversat”) and Bantz
et al. (US 5,613,206; published Mar. 18, 1997) (hereafter “Bantz”). Ans. 2—
8.
Claims 3, 10, 11, 24—29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Traversat, Bantz,
and Zhang (US 2007/0113269 Al; May 17, 2007) (provisional application
filed July 29, 2003). Ans. 8-11.
ANALYSIS
The Combination of Traversat and Bantz under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
The Examiner finds Traversat teaches a cellular phone is part of a
peer-to-peer network. Ans. 4 (citing Traversat 175). Furthermore, the
2
Appeal 2015-004068
Application 10/576,970
Examiner finds Bantz teaches a cellular peer-to-peer network that permits
terminal end-to-end communications. Ans. 4 (citing Bantz, 2:63—3:9, Fig.
2). The Examiner finds a person having ordinary still in the art would have
combined Traversat’s cellular phone on a peer-to-peer network and Bantz’s
cellular communication network to support wireless data communication
within the coverage area of a cell base as a simple substitution. Ans. 5, 12.
Appellants first argue that Traversat fails to teach a cellular
communication network and this is reinforced by the Specification’s
disclosure that cellular network implementations at the time the application
was filed did not permit for terminal end-to-end communications. App. Br.
7—8. Second, Appellants argue there can be no prima facie basis of
obviousness because Traversat teaches rendezvous proxy 206 may permit
communication across subnetworks, whereas Bantz’s AHC facilitates
communication only between devices within a single subnetwork 10. App.
Br. 8—10; Reply Br. 1—3. We disagree with Appellants.
As for Appellants first argument, the cited portions of Bantz relied
upon by the Examiner teaches a cellular peer-to-peer network that permits
terminal end-to-end communications. See Bantz, 2:63—3:9, Fig. 2.
As for Appellants second argument, we note the test for obviousness
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to a
person of ordinary skill in the art, not whether one reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of another reference. In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425 (CCPA 1981). In addition, the Examiner finds a person having
ordinary still in the art would have combined Traversat’s cellular phone on a
peer-to-peer network and Bantz’s cellular communication network to
support wireless data communication within the coverage area of a cell base
3
Appeal 2015-004068
Application 10/576,970
as a simple substitution. Ans. 5, 12. The Examiner, therefore, provides
articulated reasoning with rational underpinnings to support the motivation
to combine the teachings of Traversat and Bantz. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977,
989 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
The Limitation “all” Recited in Claims 1 and 22
The Examiner finds Traversat teaches a relay peer maintains
information to other peers and the relay peer is selected from amongst all of
the peers. Ans. 13.
Appellants argue the Examiner does not address the limitation “all”
recited in claims 1 and 22. App. Br. 10-12. We disagree with Appellants.
At the outset, Appellants argument lack rationale as to how Traversat
and Bantz fail to teach the limitation “all” as recited in claims 1 and 22.
Ans. 13; see also App. Br. 10-12. Moreover, in its Reply Brief, Appellants
do not rebut the Examiner’s prima facie finding of Traversat teaching a relay
peer that maintains information to other peers and the relay peer is selected
from amongst all of the peers. Ans. 13; see generally Reply Br. 1^4.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Because Appellants have
provided similar arguments against the rejections of claims 2—19, 22, 24—29,
and 31—34 (see App. Br. 12), these claims fall with claim 1 for the same
reasons as set forth above. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(vii).
4
Appeal 2015-004068
Application 10/576,970
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—19, 22, 24—29, and 31—34
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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