Ex Parte Ulupinar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2016

12756290 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
121756,290 04/08/2010
23696 7590 04/21/2016
QUALCOMM INCORPORATED
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Fatih Ulupinar
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.
091785U3 1368
EXAMINER
CEHIC, KENAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteFATIHULUPINAR, YONGSHENG SHI,
GA VIN BERNARD HORN, P ARAG ARUN AGASHE,
and XIAOLONG HUANG
Appeal2014-003294
Application 12/756,290
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 filed this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1--42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Inc. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3.
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Apr. 8, 2010 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Aug. 17, 2012 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed June 10, 2013 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed Oct. 15,
2013 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 12, 2013 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2014-003294
Application 12/756,290
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The claims are directed to routing data packets among multiple
wireless communication access points. Spec. ,-r 2.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method, comprising:
receiving a packet with a robust header compression (RoHC)
compressed header over a radio bearer;
determining a RoHC context related to the RoHC compressed
header, wherein the RoHC context corresponds to a RoHC profile for
compressing or decompressing a plurality of internet protocol (IP)
headers and at least one general packet radio service (GPRS)
tunneling protocol (GTP) header; and
decompressing the RoHC compressed header based at least in
part on the RoHC context.
REJECTIONS
RI. Claims 1-3, 7-9, 13, 14, 22, 23, 25, 29, 33, and 40 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bormann (RObust Header
Compression (ROHC): Framework and Four Profiles: RTP, UDP, ESP, and
Uncompressed, Request for Comments: 3095, Network Working Group, The
Internet Society; pub. July 2001) and Document R2-092425 from the
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (Considerations on
Relay Architecture, 3rd Generation Partnership Project, Radio Access
Networks Group Meeting, Seoul, Korea (2009); pub. Mar. 2009) (hereinafter
"ETRI"). Final Act. 33--41.
R2. Claims 4, 5, 10, 11, 26, 27, 30, 31, 34, and 41 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Bormann, ETRI, and Forsberg (US
2009/0016334 Al; pub. Jan. 15, 2009). Final Act. 41--43.
2
Appeal2014-003294
Application 12/756,290
R3. Claims 6, 12, 15, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Bormann, ETRI, and Haapapuro (US 2008/0153454 Al;
pub. June 26, 2008). Final Act. 43--44.
R4. Claims 16-18 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Bormann, ETRI, and Babbar (US 2007/0147366 Al; pub. June 28,
2007). Final Act. 45--49.
R5. Claims 19 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Bormann, ETRI, Babbar, and Forsberg. Final Act. 49-50.
R6. Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Bormann, ETRI, Babbar, and Haapapuro. Final Act. 50---51.
R7. Claims 37 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Bormann, ETRI, Babbar, and Forsberg. Final Act. 51-52.
R8. Claim 39 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Bormann, ETRI, Babbar, and Gasparroni (US 2009/0016282 Al; pub. Jan.
15, 2009). Final Act. 52-53.
R9. Claims 28, 32, 35, and 42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) based on Bormann, ETRI, and Gasparroni. Final Act. 54.
ANALYSIS
Rejection RI - Independent Claim 1
The Examiner finds Bormann teaches a robust header compression
(RoHC) profile for compressing or decompressing a plurality of various IP
headers and a tunneling protocol header (Final Act. 33; Ans. 3---6 (citing
Bormann, Section 5.1.2, p. 40, and Section 5.8.4.4, p. 117-8)), and finds
ETRI teaches compressing a general packet radio service (GPRS) tunneling
protocol (GTP) header (Final Act. 39; Ans. 7-8 (citing ETRI, Section 3.1, p.
3
Appeal2014-003294
Application 12/756,290
3) ). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine the
GTP header compression of ETRI in the compression scheme of Bormann in
order to reduce signaling overhead in the relay network system, thereby
increasing the capacity of the system. Final Act. 41; Ans. 8.
Appellants contend Bormann teaches methods for compressing UDP
(transport layer) protocols and RTP (application layer) protocols, but
Bormann does not teach methods for compressing other varieties of IP
headers, and more specifically does not teach methods for compressing
tunneling (link layer) headers such as GTP headers. App. Br. 10-11; Reply
Br. 2-3. Appellants' contentions do not persuade us of Examiner error,
because the Examiner relied upon the combination of Bormann and ETRI,
and Appellants' arguments are in essence an attack upon Bormann alone
without considering it in combination with ETRI. "Non-obviousness cannot
be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is
based upon the teachings of a combination of references." In re Merck &
Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425 (CCP A 1981 )). The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Bormann
teaches compression of IP and tunneling headers, ETRI teaches GTP
tunneling header compression, and the combination of Bormann and ETRI
teaches the claimed RoHC profile for compressing a plurality of IP headers
and a GTP tunneling header. Final Act. 39--41; Ans. 7-8.
Appellants further contend ETRI teaches compressing headers related
to the GTP, but the reference does not teach compressing IP headers related
to both the GTP and an application packet using a single RoHC profile, and
therefore the combination of Bormann and ETRI does not teach the claimed
RoHC profile. App. Br. 11-12; Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded of
4
Appeal2014-003294
Application 12/756,290
Examiner error by Appellants' contention. Each reference has been cited by
the Examiner for its established purpose; Bormann teaches the RoHC
standard for compressing IP and tunneling protocol headers, ETRI teaches
compression of GTP headers. Appellants have not made a sufficient
showing of the difficulty posed to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine
the known functions of Bormann and ETRI, and thus have not persuaded us
of the non-obviousness of claim 1. "The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results." KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398,
416 (2007).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claim 1.
Remaining Claims
Independent claims 7, 13, 22, 25, 29, 33, and 40 are argued on the
same basis as claim 1 (App. Br. 9), and no separate arguments are presented
for claims 2---6, 8-12, 14--21, 23, 24, 26-28, 30-32, 34--39, 41, and 42 (App.
Br. 12-14). We therefore sustain their rejection for the reasons stated with
respect to independent claim 1.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1--42 are 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