Ex Parte SANNECK et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 6, 2019

14896972 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/896,972 12/09/2015
11051 7590 02/08/2019
Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP
Nokia Technologies Oy
8000 Towers Crescent Drive, 14th Floor
Vienna, VA 22182
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Henning SANNECK
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.
089229.01159 6342
EXAMINER
GHOWRW AL, OMAR J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2019 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):
sonia.whitney@squirepb.com
ipgeneraltyc@squirepb.com
nokia.ipr@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HENNING SANNECK, HAIT AO TANG, JUERGEN GOERGE,
and LARS CHRISTOPH SCHMELZ
Appeal2018-006717
Application 14/896,972 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-11, 13-18, and 27-28. 2 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Nokia Solutions and
Networks Oy. App. Br. 3.
2 Despite its appearance in certain headings at page 5 of the Final Action and
at page 7 of the Appeal Brief, claim 21 was cancelled in Appellants'
Appeal2018-006717
Application 14/896,972
We affirm.
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
The disclosed invention relates to automated network management of
communications systems. Spec. 8, 11. 33-34. Communication systems, and
their associated devices, typically have defined relationships concerning
their abilities and the manner of their interoperation. Spec. 1, 11. 5-14.
Appellants' disclosed invention uses a self-organising3 network having a
self-organising network function coordinator operating in concert with a
training coordinator. Abstract; Spec. 1, 11. 3--4; Spec. 2, 11. 12-20. The
training coordinator receives training information from a self-organising
network function and network related information. Abstract; Spec. 2, 11. 15-
20. The self-organising network function coordinator is provided with a
training request for the self-organising network function and additionally
with network related information and/or training information about one or
more other self-organising network functions. Id.
Independent claim 1 is exemplary of the disclosed invention, and
reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
receiving at a training coordinator training information
from a self-organising network function and network related
information; and
providing to a self-organising network function
coordinator a first training request comprising a training request
for said self-organising network function and one or more of
amendment of December 9, 2015. Claim 12 is not rejected and is not under
appeal.
3 Appellants' disclosure presents this term both as "self-organi§ing" ( e.g.,
Claim 1) and "self-organi.?;ing" (e.g., Spec. 2, 1. 14). (Emphasis added). We
use the claimed spelling of "self-organising" throughout this Decision.
2
Appeal2018-006717
Application 14/896,972
network related information and training information about one
or more other self-organising network functions.
Independent claims 13-14 and 27-28 recite limitations
commensurate with the above-emphasized limitations recited in claim
1. Dependent claims 2-13 and 15-18 each incorporate the limitations
of claim 1. Accordingly, we select claim 1 as representative per 37
C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv).
Examiner's Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-2, 9-11, 13-15, and 27-28 under 35
U.S.C. § I02(a)(2) as being anticipated by Merlin et al. (U.S. 2013/0176901
Al, published July 11, 2013) (hereinafter Merlin).
The Examiner rejects claim 3-8 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being obvious over the combination of Merlin and Seok et al (U.S.
2014/0321349 Al, published October 30, 2014) (hereinafter Seok).
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections (Final Act. 5-15) in light
of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 8-23;
Reply Br. 2-5). We disagree with Appellants' arguments. With regard to
representative claim 1, we adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final
Act. 4--5), and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's
Answer (Ans. 3-5) in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief. We concur
with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner as to the
anticipation rejection of claim 1.
3
Appeal2018-006717
Application 14/896,972
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
Appellants first contend that the Examiner errs by finding device 120
of Merlin to perform the "self-organising network function" from which
information is received as per claim 1. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3--4.
Appellants contend that Merlin "is silent with respect to second device 120
being a 'self-organising network function.'" App. Br. 9. Appellants refer to
the Specification for the meaning of a "self-organising network function,"
which as described "allow[ s] for automated network management" and "may
provide one or more of self-configuration, self-optimization, and healing" of
networks. Spec. 8-9; see Reply Br. 3--4. Appellants contend that the
information sent by Merlin's device "has no relationship to any of those
functions," and therefore "Merlin fails to disclose a self-organi[s]ing
network function." Reply Br. 3--4.
Claim terms are to be given their "ordinary and customary meaning"
as "read in view of the specification, of which they are a part." Phillips v.
AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 1312, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2005). Claims should not
be unduly restricted to specific examples or embodiments, because "persons
of ordinary skill in the art would rarely confine their definitions of terms to
the exact representations depicted in the embodiments." Id. at 1323.
Reading a specification in the context of the goals for disclosure of an
applicant's invention under 35 U.S.C. § 112, it will often "become clear
whether the patentee is setting out specific examples of the examples to
accomplish those goals, or whether the patentee instead intends for the
claims and the embodiments to be strictly coextensive." Id.
The Examiner finds Merlin at Figure 2 and paragraph 61 to disclose a
"self-organising network" through its disclosure of an ad-hoc wireless
4
Appeal2018-006717
Application 14/896,972
network having devices that transmit and receive network-related
information through instructions executed by their processors (i.e.,
automatically). Ans. 3--4, 7-8. The Examiner further finds the
communication of training and network related information from device 120
to device 110, as shown in Figure 2, performs the claimed "self-organising
network function." Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 4--5.
We do not find persuasive Appellants' contention that the Examiner's
findings are in error as being inconsistent with Appellants' Specification.
The Specification, as cited by Appellants (Reply Br. 3--4) fails to define a
"self-organising network" except in that it "allow[ s] for automated network
management." Spec. 8, 1. 26, through 9, 1. 13. Merlin's ad-hoc wireless
network shown in Figure 2 is described as the direct communication
between mobile devices, which are set up and operated based upon
management information sent by one of the participating mobile devices
through instructions automatically executed by its processor. Merlin Fig. 2,
,r 61; see also Merlin ,r 4. Appellants have not persuasively explained why
the wireless network communication between mobile devices 120 and 110 in
Figure 2 is not "self-organising" and why it would not allow for automated
network management. Accordingly, Appellants have failed to show that the
Examiner errs in finding device 120 to perform a "self-organising network
function."
Appellants further contend that Appellants' Specification lists certain
functions, e.g., "self-optimization", as required elements of a "self-
organising network function." App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3--4. However, the
Specification states only that a self-organising network "may provide" these
certain functions, not that these functions are the defining characteristics of a
5
Appeal2018-006717
Application 14/896,972
"self-organising network function." Spec. 8-9. The Specification therefore
indicates to one having ordinary skill in the art that self-configuration, self-
optimization, and healing are specific examples of possible functions of a
self-organising network, rather than limitations that define the outer limits of
the claim. Appellants' proposed construction would unduly import
limitations from the Specification that are merely exemplary, and is
therefore not a persuasive construction. Furthermore, Appellants' bare
allegation on this point fails to explain why Merlin, which describes its
disclosed invention as providing "improved allocation of network resources
due to efficient management information communication techniques"
(Merlin ,r 15), would be inconsistent with the example of "providing self-
optimization" set forth in the Specification. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded by Appellants' argument that Merlin fails to disclose a self-
organising network function.
Appellants next contend the Examiner fails to show that device 120
sends "training information" via the beacon that is received by the first
device, because the beacon is merely a "'signal identifying the network
130."' App. Br. 9. Appellants describe "training information" as pertaining
to the initial model building information or to further information during
system operation when there is a change of the system. Reply Br. 4. Citing
paragraph 26 of Merlin, Appellants contend the information sent by device
120 merely identifies the network sent therefrom, and has "no relationship to
model building or monitoring self-organi[s]ing network functions." Id.
The Examiner finds the beacon transmitting from device 120 to be
"synonymous to" training information, because "both are typically
transmitted before communication between nodes occurs." Ans. 3--4. The
6
Appeal2018-006717
Application 14/896,972
Examiner further states that the beacon is "network-related information"
because it is "information that relates to both the sender and receiver in the
ad-hoc wireless network." Ans. 4. The Examiner's findings are supported
by the cited Figure 2 of Merlin, which portrays an initial beacon message
from device 120 that initiates a sequence of communication to manage the
network; i.e., in the initial stages of determining the connectivity between
the devices and the network. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument
that the information sent from device 120 has no relationship to building or
monitoring the self-organising functions of the wireless network, and
therefore conclude that Appellants have failed to show error in the
Examiner's conclusion that Merlin discloses the claimed "training
information."
Appellants' further contention of error, against the Examiner's finding
that Merlin discloses the "providing" limitation, relies upon the same
allegations as for the "receiving" limitation; i.e., relating to a lack of
disclosure of a "self-organising network function" and "information about
one or more other self-organising network features." App. Br. 9. For the
same reasons as discussed for the "receiving" limitation, supra, Appellants'
contention of error relating the "providing" limitation fails to be persuasive.
With respect to claims 2, 9-11, 13-15, and 27-28, to the extent that
Appellants provide any discussion beyond repeating the alleged deficiencies
found in the rejection of claim 1, Appellants merely point out what the
claims recite and then asserts that there is no corresponding combination of
steps taught or suggested in the applied references. App. Br. 10-18. That is
tantamount to merely pointing out the differences in what the claims cover,
lacking the substantive argument as to the separate patentability of the
7
Appeal2018-006717
Application 14/896,972
claims that is required by 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(iv). See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d
1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ("[W]e hold that the Board reasonably
interpreted Rule 41. 3 7 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal
brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that
the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.").
In view of the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner's anticipation
rejection of claim 1, as well as claims 2, 9-11, 13-15, and 27-28 grouped
therewith.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
As to the rejection of dependent claims 3-8 and 16-18 as being
obvious over the combination of Merlin and Seok, Appellants contend that
these claims are patentable for at least the reasons independent claim 1 is
patentable. App. Br. 18-22. Appellants further contend that the Final
Office Action did not directly address each additional limitation of each
dependent claim.
Appellants' contentions regarding the limitations recited in claim 1
have been considered and found unpersuasive, supra. Appellants' further
contentions amount to merely point out what the claims recite and asserting
that there is no corresponding combination taught in the applied references.
As discussed, supra, such contentions fail to amount to separate arguments
as to the patentability of claims 3-8 and 16-18.
Therefore, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 3-8 and 16-18. See 37 C.F.R. §4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
8
Appeal2018-006717
Application 14/896,972
CONCLUSIONS
( 1) We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
has erred in rejecting claims 1-2, 9-11, 13-15, and 27-28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Merlin.
(2) We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
has erred in rejecting claims 3-8 and 16-18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combination of Merlin and Seok.
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-2, 9-11, 13-15,
and 27-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2).
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejections of claims 3-8 and 16-18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9