Ex Parte Stirbu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 8, 2014

11082633 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 8, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte VLAD STIRBU and MIKA SAARANEN ____________ Appeal 2012–004888 Application 11/082,633 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, CATHERINE SHIANG, and ROBERT J. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judges. WEINSCHENK, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1–6, 10–18, and 22–26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to expanding universal plug and play capabilities in a power constrained environment (Spec. 1:5–7). Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows: Appeal 2012–004888 Application 11/082,633 2 1. A method, comprising: receiving by a terminal a notification about a power saving mode of a further terminal; selecting a waiting time interval in response to the notification about the power saving mode of the further terminal, wherein said waiting time interval is selected based at least on a time needed for said further terminal to wake up from the power saving mode; providing to a network by a protocol stack of said terminal a connection communication signal for establishing said connection with said further terminal by transmitting said communication signal according to a pre-selected procedure using a communication application available in said terminal, whereby communications can be established to the further terminal when the further terminal is in the power saving mode; and receiving by said terminal, after said further terminal is woken up, an acknowledgement of receiving said communication signal by said further terminal, wherein said terminal waits for said acknowledgement at least for the waiting time interval before terminating said establishing based on a predetermined criterion facilitated by said communication application of the terminal, and wherein if the acknowledgement is received before the expiration of the waiting time interval, the connection is established. Rejections on Appeal Claims 1, 2, 11–14, and 23–26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harsch (US 6,212,175 B1; Apr. 3, 2001), F. Gont, TCP Adaptive User TimeOut (AUTO) Option, Network Working Group, Internet–Draft 1–8 (May 19, 2004) (hereinafter “Gont”), and Buskens (US 6,215,782 B1; Apr. 10, 2001) (see Ans. 5–13). Appeal 2012–004888 Application 11/082,633 3 Claims 3–5, 10, 15–17, and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harsch, Gont, Buskens, and Appellants’ admitted prior art (hereinafter “AAPA”) (see Ans. 13–19). Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Harsch, Gont, Buskens, AAPA, and Tzu-Chi Huang and Ce-Kuen Shieh, Extending TCP Retransmission Timeout at Mobile IP Handoffs for Windows 2000: A Case Study, 7th International Conference on Telecommunications 653–56 (June 11–13, 2003) (hereinafter “Huang”) (see Ans. 19). Issues on Appeal The dispositive issued presented by Appellants is: Does Harsch teach “receiving by a terminal a notification about a power saving mode of a further terminal,” as recited in claim 1? ANALYSIS We refer herein to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed June 27, 2011 (“App. Br.”), the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 12, 2011 (“Ans.”), and Appellants’ Reply Brief filed December 12, 2011 (“Reply Br.”). Appellants argue Harsch does not teach receiving by a terminal a notification about a power saving mode of a further terminal (App. Br. 7, 8). The Examiner points to the “keepalive packet” received by a server from a mobile communication unit in Harsch as being a notification about a power saving mode (Ans. 5, 6, 20). Appellants argue the keepalive packet does not provide the server with any notification about a power saving mode (App. Br. 7). We agree with Appellants. The keepalive packet resets the predetermined period of time allowed before the server ends the connection Appeal 2012–004888 Application 11/082,633 4 with the mobile communication unit (Harsch 12:12–18). Although the mobile communication device may enter a reduced power mode before or after transmitting a keepalive packet (Harsch 12:6–8; 12:12–15), the portions of Harsch cited by the Examiner do not teach that the keepalive packet provides any notification to the server about the reduced power mode (Harsch 12:3–28). In fact, Harsch teaches the keepalive packet does “not include any actual data to be transmitted to the server” (Harsch 12:26–28). Therefore, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Claims 13, 23, and 24 contain similar limitations to the one discussed above with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 14, 17, 18), and thus we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 13, 23, and 24 for the same reasons discussed above. Claims 2–6, 10–12, 14–18, 22, 25, and 26 depend, directly or indirectly, from claims 1, 13, 23, or 24, and thus we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–6, 10–12, 14–18, 22, 25, and 26. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1–6, 10–18, and 22–26 is reversed. REVERSED Klh