Intel IP Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 29, 2022

2021001434 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 29, 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. 15/391,332 12/27/2016 Laurent Cariou P111672 8857 152398 7590 03/29/2022 Alliance IP, LLC - I 20 E. Thomas Rd. Suite 2200, PMB 96 Phoenix, AZ 85012 EXAMINER NGUYEN, LIEM HONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2416 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/29/2022 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 LAURENT CARIOU, ROBERT STACEY, MINYOUNG PARK, PO-KAI HUANG, and ALEXANDER W. MIN Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 Technology Center 2400 Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOYCE CRAIG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims 26, 28-31, 33-37, 39-43, 45-49, and 51-54 are pending, stand rejected, are appealed by Appellant1, and are the subject of our decision under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). See Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 1.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. 2 We refer to Appellant’s Specification (“Spec.”), filed December 27, 2016; and Revised Appeal Brief (“Appeal Br.”), filed September 15, 2020. We Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claimed subject matter, according to Appellant, generally relates “to finding access point candidates for basic service set transitions in a wireless network.” Spec. ¶ 1. Specifically, the Specification observes that stations (STAs) in a wireless network “regularly perform scanning (either active or passive) for alternative candidate access points (APs), especially when the received signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) with the serving AP becomes low.” Id. ¶ 2. But “[t]he discovery of neighbor APs according to the prior art is a function that consumes power for the STA, that occupies the airtime, and that disables data transmission and reception during the scanning phase, impacting QoS.” Id. ¶ 26. Accordingly, the Specification describes using a low-power wake-up receiver (LP-WUR) for an “STA to perform SNR estimations on the serving AP and on neighbor APs.” Id. ¶ 27. Claim 26 (directed to a device), claim 37 (directed to computer-readable non- transitory storage media), claim 43 (directed to a method), and claim 49 (directed to a device) are independent. Claim 26, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 26. A wireless communication device of a wireless station (STA), the device including: a memory; processing circuitry coupled to the memory, the processing circuitry including Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) baseband processing circuitry configured to process WLAN packets according to a WLAN wireless communication protocol, and a wake-up receiver (WUR) baseband processing circuitry coupled to the WLAN baseband processing circuitry and configured to process WUR packets according to a Low- also refer to the Examiner’s Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed February 21, 2020; and Answer (“Ans.”) mailed October 26, 2020. Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 3 Power Wake-Up (LP-WU) wireless communication protocol different from the WLAN wireless communication protocol, wherein the WUR packets are modulated using On-Off Keying (OOK), and wherein the WUR baseband processing circuitry is to wake up the WLAN baseband processing circuitry when there are WLAN packets to be processed, the processing circuitry further including logic to: process, using the WLAN baseband processing circuitry, a neighbor report frame from a serving access point (AP), the neighbor report frame including information to identify respective ones of a plurality of Wake-Up Radio (WUR) neighbor APs and information on a timing for transmission of respective ones of the WUR packets from the respective ones of the plurality of neighbor APs; identify the respective ones of the plurality of WUR neighbor APs from the neighbor report frame; determine the timing for transmission of the respective ones of the WUR packets from the neighbor report frame, the timing for transmission including information on a specific time interval at which the respective ones of the WUR packets are to be transmitted; perform scanning, using the WUR baseband processing circuitry, for the respective ones of the WUR packets from respective ones of the plurality of WUR neighbor APs, the scanning based on the timing for transmission of the respective ones of the WUR packets; and trigger transition of the STA from the serving access point to one of the plurality of WUR neighbor APs based on the information to identify respective ones of the plurality of WUR neighbor APs and based on the scanning. Appeal Br. 22-23 (Claims App.). Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 4 REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Marinier et al. (“Marinier”) US 2006/0009246 A1 Jan. 12, 2006 Ruuska US 2007/0064655 A1 Mar. 22, 2007 Benoit et al. (“Benoit”) US 2016/0057703 A1 Feb. 25, 2016 Vamaraju et al. (“Vamaraju”) US 2017/0171833 A1 June 15, 2017 (filed Dec. 9, 2016) Gan et al. (“Gan”) US 2019/0274103 A1 Sept. 5, 2019 (claiming priority to a foreign application filed Nov. 18, 2016) REJECTION3 The Examiner rejects claims 26, 35-37, 43, 49, and 51-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gan and Ruuska. See Final Act. 5-26. The Examiner rejects claims 28, 29, 33, 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gan, Ruuska, and Vamaraju. See Final Act. 27-34. The Examiner rejects claims 30, 31, 41, and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gan, Ruuska, and Benoit. See Final Act. 34-37. The Examiner rejects claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Gan, Ruuska, and Marinier. See Final Act. 37-38. 3 The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284 (2011), amended 35 U.S.C. § 103. Because the present application has an effective filing after the AIA’s effective date (March 16, 2013), this decision refers to the AIA version of 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 5 ANALYSIS Appellant argues independent claims 26, 37, 43, and 49 and dependent claims 28-31, 33-36, 39-42, 45-48, and 51-54 together as a group. See Appeal Br. 11-20. We select independent claim 26 as representative of Appellant’s arguments with respect to claims 26, 28-31, 33-37, 39-43, 45-49, and 51-54. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019). The Examiner rejects independent claim 26 (as well as independent claims 37, 43, and 49, and dependent claims 35, 36, and 51-54) as obvious in view of Gan and Ruuska. See Final Act. 5-26. Specifically, the Examiner finds that Gan teaches a device with a memory and processing circuitry as recited in claim 26, particularly “a wake-up receiver (WUR) baseband processing circuity coupled to the WLAN baseband processing circuitry.” Final Act. 5-7 (citing Gan, Figs. 3, 4A, 4B, 6, ¶¶ 62-63, 83-86, 88). The Examiner further finds that Russka teaches the functionality of “process[ing] . . . a neighbor report frame from a serving access point (AP),” “identify[ing] . . . neighbor APs from the neighbor report frame,” “determin[ing] the timing for transmission of the respective . . . packets from the neighbor report frame,” “perform[ing] scanning . . . for the respective . . . packets from respective . . . neighbor APs,” and “trigger[ing] transition of the STA from the serving access point to one of the . . . neighbor APs,” as recited in claim 26. See id. at 7-10 (citing Ruuska, Figs. 8, 13, ¶¶ 9, 58-60, 79). The Examiner concludes it would have been obvious to combine Ruuska with Gan “in order to facilitate quicker roaming decisions and association to a new AP.” Id. at 10 (citing Ruuska ¶ 9). In the Answer, the Examiner further explains that “[i]n combination with Gan, Ruuska teaches the intervals at which an AP would transmit the measurement pilot and Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 6 beacon signals to a station, in order for the station to more intelligently scan/monitor for such signals.” Ans. 5. Appellant contends that “[e]verything in Gan points to the conditional transmission of wake up packets, and away from the use of schedules/times intervals for the transmission of wake up packets.” Appeal Br. 17. Accordingly, Appellant argues, Gan “could not, under any modification of the same, involve the transmission of those wake up packets using a timing for transmission that corresponds to a ‘time interval.’” Id. at 19. Rather, Appellant argues, “[s]uch a modification would be completely inconsistent with Gan” and “[t]here would be no motivation to combine Gan and Ruuska in the manner contemplated by the Final Rejection.” Id. at 19-20. 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. 5-38) and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer (Ans. 3- 6) in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the findings and conclusions reached by the Examiner, and we provide the following analysis for emphasis. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellant’s arguments, and find the Examiner has provided a sufficient rationale for combining the references. Gan describes that a station in a WLAN may include a LP-WUR, in addition to a main transceiver based on the 802.11 standard, so that an access point can send a wake up packet to the LP-WUR of the station, which in turn causes the main transceiver to wake up. See Gan ¶ 60. By using “the low power WUR instead of using the 802.11 main transceiver to listen to a channel when a medium is idle,” a station “can effectively reduce a waste of energy consumption for device listening.” Id. ¶ 61. Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 7 Ruuska describes that “[w]hen a mobile station moves around a wireless network (e.g., WLAN), the station may need to change its present association from one AP to another AP.” Ruuska ¶ 4. In an embodiment, a station “may receive information in a neighbor report regarding the measurement pilots and/or beacons transmitted by one or more other (neighboring) APs.” Id. ¶ 58. In particular, the neighbor report may indicate “a timer value or TSF [(timing synchronization function, see id. ¶ 32)] offset for each AP,” so that “[t]he TSF or timer value from the AP may, in some cases, allow the station to estimate when the measurement pilot and/or beacon may be transmitted by the neighbor AP, which may allow the station to determine when to receive signals on a channel or from an AP.” Id. ¶ 59. We agree with the Examiner that it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to combine Ruuska with Gan because it would facilitate quicker roaming decisions and allow a station to more intelligently scan for signals from neighboring access points. Final Act. 10 (citing Ruuska ¶ 9); Ans. 5 (citing Ruuska ¶ 60). Specifically, both Gan and Ruuska relate to WLAN systems, and Ruuska describes a need in WLAN systems for a station to change associations with APs when the station moves around a network. See Ruuska ¶ 4. Accordingly, it would have been well within the knowledge of a skilled artisan to implement some type of roaming capability for Gan’s station. Ruuska provides such a roaming capability that is, in at least some cases, quicker than pre-existing methods of passive or active scanning for neighboring APs (see id. ¶¶ 6-9) and “may allow the station to be more intelligent in its signal scanning or monitoring, e.g., by using this AP information to select a better or more efficient Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 8 technique to measure or monitor signals from other (neighboring) APs” (id. ¶ 60). To the extent Appellant argues the Examiner’s rationale for combining the references is insufficient (Appeal Br. 20 (“There would be no motivation to combine Gan and Ruuska in the manner contemplated by the Final Rejection.”)), a rejection based on obviousness need only be supported by “some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning” to combine known elements in the manner required by the claim (KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (quoting In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006))). Appellant argues that “[t]here is in fact nothing in Gan, or nothing in Ruuska for that matter, that would suggest providing timing intervals for the transmission of wake up packets” (Appeal Br. 20), but Appellant has not specifically explained why the Examiner’s stated rationales (see Final Act. 10; Ans. 5) are not sufficient. We disagree with Appellant’s argument that Gan could not be modified, in view of Ruuska, to send wake up packets based on transmission timing because “Gan relies on a conditional transmission of wake up packets.” Appeal Br. 19. The combination of Gan and Ruuska need not be a physical combination (incorporation). It is well settled that “a determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.” In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citations omitted). Nor is the test for obviousness whether a secondary reference’s features can be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 9 It is true that Gan focuses on a solution for sending a wake up packet that involves setting network allocation vectors (NAVs). See Gan ¶ 4 (“A NAV function logically exists in the MAC layer, and provides a virtual carrier sense mechanism to enhance physical carrier sense. Before sending the wake up packet to the second node, the first node needs to determine whether a NAV is set for the first node . . . .”). Appellant refers to this as “conditional transmission.” See, e.g., Appeal Br. 16. But, the Examiner relies on Gan mainly for teaching the structure of the claimed device, in particular, “a wake-up receiver (WUR) baseband processing circuitry coupled to the WLAN baseband processing circuitry,” as recited in claim 26. When implementing Ruuska’s roaming capability in Gan’s system-which would have been obvious for the reasons stated above-one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so by using Gan’s WUR to scan for WUR packets according to information in the neighbor report because, as noted above, a low power WUR “can effectively reduce a waste of energy consumption for device listening.” Gan ¶ 61. Appellant has not presented evidence sufficient to persuade us that combining the respective familiar elements of the cited references in the manner proffered by the Examiner would have been “uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art” at the time of Appellant’s invention. Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418). Specifically, Appellant has not shown that Gan’s WUR is incapable of operating by scanning, at particular times, for WUR packets that happen to be sent by APs in the context of roaming from one AP to another. Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 10 Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in combining the cited teachings of Ruuska with those of Gan. Appellant has not identified any knowledge relied upon by the Examiner that was gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that was not otherwise within the level of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971). Nor has Appellant provided objective evidence of secondary considerations, which “operates as a beneficial check on hindsight.” Cheese Sys., Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese & Powder Sys., Inc., 725 F.3d 1341, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Appellant also argues that “even if Gan were to be modified in view of Ruuska (assuming arguendo that such a combination were possible), the Gan-Ruuska combination would not disclose or suggest” various limitations. Appeal Br. 19. This argument is merely conclusory, however, because Appellant does not address any of the Examiner’s specific citations to the references in the Final Action or the Answer in asserting the identified limitations are missing. See id. We are thus not persuaded that the combination of Gan and Ruuska fails to teach any limitations recited in claim 26. Accordingly, based on a preponderance of the evidence, Appellant’s contentions do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Gan and Ruuska renders obvious Appellant’s independent claim 26. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 26, as well as independent claim 37, 43, and 49, and dependent claims 28-31, 33-36, 39-42, 45-48, and 51-54 not separately argued with particularity. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2021-001434 Application 15/391,332 11 CONCLUSION Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 26, 28-31, 33-37, 39-43, 45-49, and 51-54 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We, therefore, affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 26, 28-31, 33-37, 39-43, 45-49, and 51-54. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 26, 35-37, 43, 49, 51- 54 103 Gan, Ruuska 26, 35-37, 43, 49, 51- 54 28, 29, 33, 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 48 103 Gan, Ruuska, Vamaraju 28, 29, 33, 39, 40, 42, 45, 46, 48 30, 31, 41, 47 103 Gan, Ruuska, Benoit 30, 31, 41, 47 34 103 Gan, Ruuska, Marinier 34 Overall outcome 26, 28-31, 33-37, 39- 43, 45-49, 51-54 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. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED