Intel IP Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 29, 2021

2020000440 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 29, 2021)

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. 14/581,803 12/23/2014 Vivek Gupta P67700/1020P67700 2176 57035 7590 04/29/2021 KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC 2601 Weston Parkway Suite 103 Cary, NC 27513 EXAMINER CROMPTON, CHRISTOPHER R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/29/2021 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): INTEL@kdbfirm.com docketing@kdbfirm.com kpotts@kdbfirm.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte VIVEK GUPTA, PUNEET K. JAIN, and ALEXANDRE S. STOJANOVSKI Appeal 2020-000440 Application 14/581,803 Technology Center 2400 Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 9–12, 15–21, and 23–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Intel Corporation. Appeal Br. 2. Appeal 2020-000440 Application 14/581,803 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to updates to “techniques for sharing IP flow routing rules and/or filters between a UE and various network infrastructure components using existing network based protocols or extensions thereto.” Spec. ¶ 18. Claim 9, reproduced below, illustrates the claimed subject matter: 9. User equipment (UE), comprising: logic, at least a portion of which is in hardware, the logic to: generate a wireless local area network (WLAN) control protocol (WLCP) flow mobility request message indicating that an internet protocol (IP) flow is to be moved from a first wireless access system to a second wireless access system, and include an updated routing rule for the IP flow in a protocol configuration options (PCO) field of the WLCP flow mobility request message; and a transceiver to transmit the WLCP flow mobility request message. Appeal Br. 11 (Claims App.). REFERENCES AND REJECTION The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Jeong US 2017/0048739 A1 Feb. 16, 2017 Claims 9–12, 15–21, and 23–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jeong.2 Final Act. 3–4. 2 The Examiner refers to this prior art reference as “R1.” See Final Act. 3. Appeal 2020-000440 Application 14/581,803 3 OPINION We have reviewed the rejection of claims 9–12, 15–21, and 23–25 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. For the reasons explained below, we disagree with Appellant’s assertions regarding Examiner error. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and reasoning in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 3–6) and Answer (Ans. 3–6). We add the following to address and emphasize specific findings and arguments. With respect to independent claim 9, Appellant contends the Examiner erred because paragraph 245 of Jeong, as cited by the Examiner, does not provide “any description of the type, content or format of the information.” Appeal Br. 6. According to Appellant, [f]or example, the information could be limited to a particular IP flow such as an IP flow identifier. Therefore, what precisely constitutes “this information” is unknown. What is certain, however, is that there is absolutely no mention that the information is in the form of a routing rule, let alone an updated routing rule for the IP flow, as recited in claim 9. In fact, paragraph [0245] expressly admits this deficiency, stating that “part of the procedure for the UE to select an access network for a specific IP flow to configure the routing path of the IP flow is omitted in the above-described embodiments.” R1, Paragraph [0245] (Emphasis Added). Furthermore, there is no mention of how this information is transmitted in a WLCP message, or whether a particular WLCP field is used to convey such information. There is certainly no mention of conveying a routing rule via a PCO field of WLCP. Appeal Br. 6–7. Appellant also contends the cited reference does not disclose a PCO field of WLPC, whereas “claim 9 explicitly recites the protocol configuration options (PCO) field is from a wireless local area network (WLAN) control protocol (WLCP) flow mobility request message” and “WLCP is in fact a specific protocol as defined by the Third Generation Appeal 2020-000440 Application 14/581,803 4 Partnership Project (3GPP).” Appeal Br. 8 (citing Spec. ¶ 37). Appellant further refers to paragraphs 41 and 104 of the Specification for descriptions of the recited PCO field of the WLCP message and asserts that “the specification does define a PCO field.” Appeal Br. 8–9. In response, the Examiner explains that the reference discloses the recited “routing rule for the IP flow” as the information for selecting “an access network for relaying a specific IP flow” which is “transmitted to the WLAN by means of a WLCP.” Ans. 5–6. Based on such reading of paragraph 245 of Jeong, the Examiner finds Appellant’s assessment of the reference as misrepresentation. Ans. 6. With respect to the recited term “PCO field of the WLCP flow mobility request message,” the Examiner explains that Appellant’s Figure 8 and paragraphs 41 and 104 of the Specification do not clearly define the PCO field or how it is specifically structured. Ans. 4. Relying on Appellant’s disclosure regarding the “PCO field of WLCP,” the Examiner determines: Since Appellant has not defined nor limited the term to any particular definition, then the claimed limitation under the Broadest Reasonable Interpretation would be met by a field of a WLCP frame [i.e. the same structure] that provides the exact same claimed function. Finally, since the function of the information is “an updated routing rule for the IP flow” or that is, to send an updated rule for routing the IP flow, the claimed limitation would be met by a WLCP message containing a field [i.e. an item of data or information] which includes an updated routing rule for the IP flow. Therefore, since R1 discloses sending a WLCP message (¶245) which contains information [i.e. particular information in a message used for a purpose is a field] which is used to “switch a specific IP flow from one access network to another” [i.e. an updated routing rule for the IP flow configured as information i.e. a field) [R1 paragraph 245], R1 would disclose Appeal 2020-000440 Application 14/581,803 5 the claimed limitation of “include an updated routing rule for the IP flow in a protocol configuration options (PCO) field of the WLCP flow mobility request message” and the rejection under the prior art should be maintained. Ans. 5. We are unpersuaded by Appellant’s arguments. First, we agree with the Examiner that Jeong’s disclosure in paragraph 245 clearly states that although the previous embodiments did not include “the procedure for the UE to select an access network for a specific IP flow to configure the routing path of the IP flow,” such information (i.e., a specific IP flow to configure the routing path of the IP flow) is “transmitted to the WLAN by means of a WLCP.” Jeong ¶ 245; see also Ans. 5. That is, the recited “an updated routing rule for the IP flow” reads on the disclosed selecting of “the specific IP flow to configure the routing path of the IP flow,” which is the “information” transmitted to the WLAN by including it in the WLCP message. Therefore, upon considering paragraph 245 of Jeong in its entirety, we observe that Appellant’s characterization of paragraph 245 omits the word “although” to conclude that WLCP never includes the IP flow, whereas the reference teaches including the selected IP flow rules in the WLCP in the described embodiment. See Appeal Br. 6; Reply Br. 2–3. Second, with respect to the term “PCO field of the WLCP,” we are not persuaded that the Examiner applied an unreasonably broad interpretation to the claimed term. As explained by the Examiner, Appellant’s disclosure in paragraph 104 of the Specification describes different “fields” as portions of the WLCP message for conveying specific information used by user equipment before a connection is established. We also agree with the Examiner that Jeong discloses the specific recited routing Appeal 2020-000440 Application 14/581,803 6 rule for the IP flow included in the WLCP message, which means that the IP flow rule is provided in a field of the WLCP. See Ans. 4–5. In particular, Appellant’s disclosure describes the recited PCO field of the WLCP as “the information element field” or a part of the WLCP message that includes the IP flow information. Fig. 8, Spec. ¶ 104. Additionally, we observe that paragraphs 230–231 of Jeong disclose similar PCO field as follows: [0230] The P-GW 1604 may transmit at step 1620 a session management message ( one of GTP-C message and PMIP message) including the PCO destined for the UE 1602, and the PCO may include the information indicating that the NW supports the NW-based IP flow mobility, e.g., NW-initiated IP flow mobility support. [0231] Whether to apply the NW-based IP flow mobility may be configured per user, per APN, or per further smaller traffic unit (e.g., EPS bearer or IP flow with specific QCI). If the session management message transmitted by the P-GW 1604 is received, the core network node (MME/SGSN or TWAN/ePDG) includes the PCO in the NAS message or WLCP/IKE/EAP message transmitted to the UE 1602. Emphases added. Therefore, to the extent Appellant’s disclosure describes including the routing rule for IP flow in a PCO field of the WLCP message (see Spec. ¶¶ 37, 41, 104), Jeong’s WLCP message includes information element portions or fields for the IP flow rule. As stated above, paragraphs 230–231 of Jeong disclose including the PCO (indicating the IP flow) in the WLCP message transmitted to the user equipment. Contrary to Appellant’s argument that the Examiner’s interpretation ignores the recited term (see Reply Br. 2), it follows that Jeong’s disclosure of providing a specific IP flow to configure the routing path of the IP flow or the updated routing rule Appeal 2020-000440 Application 14/581,803 7 for the IP flow in a WLCP message (see ¶ 245) provides for including the IP flow rule in the WLCP message, which has a place for such information, i.e., the PCO field. As such, Appellant’s contentions do not persuasively point out any error in the Examiner’s proposed rejection of claim 9 as anticipated by Jeong. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 9, as well as claims 10–12, 15–21, and 23–25 not argued separately, as being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2). DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 9–12, 15– 21, 23–25 102(a)(2) Jeong 9–12, 15– 21, 23–25 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2018). AFFIRMED