Intel IP Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 22, 2022

2021001285 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2022)

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. 15/878,175 01/23/2018 Robert Zaus P64802-C1 4506 152398 7590 02/22/2022 Alliance IP, LLC - I 20 E. Thomas Rd. Suite 2200, PMB 96 Phoenix, AZ 85012 EXAMINER PASIA, REDENTOR M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2413 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2022 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): docket@allianceip.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte ROBERT ZAUS, MARTIN KOLDE, JEROME PARRON, ANA LUCIA A. PINHEIRO, MARTA MARTINEZ TARRADELL, HYUNG-NAM CHOI, VIVEK GUPTA, CHEN-HO CHIN, RICHARD C. BURBIDGE, and CANDY YIU ________________ Appeal 2021-001285 Application 15/878,175 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JOHN A. EVANS, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection of claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. INVENTION The invention relates to technology for using an open mobile alliance management object for congestion control in mobile networks. Abstract. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2012). According to Appellant, Intel Corporation is the real party in interest. Supplemental Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2021-001285 Application 15/878,175 2 1. An apparatus of a user equipment (UE) configured for application specific congestion control for data communication (ACDC), the apparatus comprising: one or more processors configured to: identify, at the UE, an Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) management object (MO) for ACDC, wherein the OMA MO comprises: a leaf that corresponds to one or more application identifiers; and a leaf that corresponds to one or more ACDC levels for one or more applications operating at the UE; associate, at the UE, each of the one or more applications with an ACDC level based on the application identifiers; decode, at the UE, application barring information received from a network for each ACDC level; and determine, at the UE, when the one or more applications operating at the UE are permitted to communicate with the network based on the decoded application barring information for each ACDC level; and memory configured to store the OMA MO. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added). REJECTIONS The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, and 19-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee (US 2014/0010180 A1; published Jan. 9, 2014) and Wang (US 2016/0212653 A1; published July 21, 2016). Final Act. 5-14. The Examiner rejects claims 4, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee, Wang, Ismail (US 2014/0133293 A1; published May 15, 2014). Final Act. 14-15. Appeal 2021-001285 Application 15/878,175 3 ANALYSIS The Examiner finds that Lee teaches application-based information subsets pertaining to one or more application category codes corresponding to respective application types operating at the UE to manage ongoing congestion, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “a leaf that corresponds to one or more application identifiers” recited in claim 1. Ans. 6-7 (citing Lee ¶¶ 123, 125-127, Fig. 9, Tables 5-6); Final Act. 5 (citing Lee ¶¶ 125-128, Fig. 9, Tables 5-6). Moreover, the Examiner that finds Lee teaches the UE receives information indicating a threshold value for a priority level such that certain lower priority levels are not permitted for congestion control, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “a leaf that corresponds to one or more ACDC levels for one or more applications operating at the UE” recited in claim 1. Ans. 7 (citing Lee ¶¶ 123, 127, Table 5); Final Act. 5 (citing Lee ¶¶ 116, 122, 137). The Examiner finds that Lee teaches an association between application category code with respect to its particular application type and also with respect to its priority level used in the congestion control being performed by the UE, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “associate, at the UE, each of the one or more applications with an ACDC level based on the application identifiers” recited in claim 1. Ans. 7-8 (citing Lee ¶ 123, Table 5); Final Act. 5-6 (citing Lee ¶¶ 125-129, Fig. 9). The Examiner finds that Wang teaches an Open Mobile Alliance management object. Ans. 8-9 (citing Wang ¶¶ 81, 84, 105, Fig. 4); Final Act. 7 (citing Wang ¶¶ 81, 105, Fig. 5). Appellant argues Lee merely teaches application categories and application types, but fails to teach the limitations “a leaf that corresponds to one or more application identifiers” and “a leaf that corresponds to one or more ACDC levels for one or more applications operating at the UE” recited Appeal 2021-001285 Application 15/878,175 4 in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14. In addition, Appellant argues because Lee’s application categories and application types do not focus on application- specific identifiers and ACDC levels, Lee fails to teach “associate, at the UE, each of the one or more applications with an ACDC level based on the application identifiers” recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant argues Wang does not teach the italicized limitations on page 2 above. Appeal Br. 14-15. We disagree with Appellant. As an initial matter, the Examiner makes new findings in the Answer. Compare Ans. 6-9 (citing Lee ¶ 123; Wang ¶ 84, Fig. 4), with Final Act. 5 - 5 (lacking a citation to Lee ¶ 123; Wang ¶ 84, Fig. 4). Although Appellant is not required to file a Reply Brief, Appellant does not rebut sufficiently the Examiner’s findings pertaining to new findings of Lee and Wang. Nonetheless, Lee teaches application-based information subsets (i.e., a leaf) pertaining to one or more application category codes corresponding to respective application types (i.e., corresponding to one or more application identifiers) operating at the UE to manage ongoing congestion, which teaches the limitation “a leaf that corresponds to one or more application identifiers” recited in claim 1. Ans. 6-7 (citing Lee ¶¶ 123, 125-127, Fig. 9, Tables 5-6); Final Act. 5 (citing Lee ¶¶ 125-128, Fig. 9, Tables 5-6). Furthermore, Lee teaches that the UE receives information indicating a threshold value for a priority level such that certain lower priority levels are not permitted for congestion control (i.e., corresponds to one or more ACDC levels), which teaches the limitation “a leaf that corresponds to one or more ACDC levels for one or more applications operating at the UE” recited in claim 1. Ans. 7 (citing Lee ¶¶ 123, 127, Table 5); Final Act. 5 (citing Lee ¶¶ 116, 122, 137). Additionally, Lee teaches an association between application category Appeal 2021-001285 Application 15/878,175 5 code (i.e., associate, at the UE, each of the one or more applications) with respect to its particular application type (i.e., based on the application identifiers) and also with respect to its priority level used in the congestion control (i.e., with an ACDC level) being performed by the UE, which teaches the limitation “associate, at the UE, each of the one or more applications with an ACDC level based on the application identifiers” recited in claim 1. Ans. 7-8 (citing Lee ¶ 123, Table 5); Final Act. 5-6 (citing Lee ¶¶ 125-129, Fig. 9). Appellant’s argument that Wang does not teach the italicized limitations above is unavailing. Appeal Br. 14-15. One cannot show nonobviousness “by attacking references individually” where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)). In this case, the Examiner relies on Lee to teach the limitations discussed in the preceding paragraphs. And the Examiner relies on Wang to teach an Open Mobile Alliance management object. Ans. 8-9 (citing Wang ¶¶ 81, 84, 105, Fig. 4); Final Act. 7 (citing Wang ¶¶ 81, 105, Fig. 5). Appellant does not argue claims 2-22 separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 10-16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims 1, 8, and 16; and (2) dependent claims 2-7, 9-15, and 17-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We have only considered those arguments that Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellant could have made, but chose not to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2013). Appeal 2021-001285 Application 15/878,175 6 CONCLUSION No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2013). AFFIRMED Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, 19-22 103 Lee, Wang 1-3, 5-9, 11-17, 19-22 4, 10, 18 103 Lee, Wang, Ismail 4, 10, 18 Overall Outcome 1-22