Jussi Ylanen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJun 3, 2021

2020001428 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 3, 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. 12/681,492 06/30/2010 Jussi Ilmari Ylanen 1004289.539US 4657 10928 7590 06/03/2021 Locke Lord LLP IP Docket Department P.O. BOX 55874 Boston, MA 02205 EXAMINER HOUSHMAND, HOOMAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/03/2021 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): patent@lockelord.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JUSSI ILMARI YLANEN, VILLE VESA PERNU, and JANI PETRI OKKER ____________________ Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, JASON J. CHUNG, and MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 25–46, and 52–56.2 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. According to Appellant, NOKIA CORPORATION is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2. 2 Claims 2–24 and 41–51 are canceled. Appeal Br. 28, 33. Claims 1, 25–32, 42–46, 52–53, and 55–56 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112 (pre-AIA) second paragraph correct an antecedent basis issue. Appeal Br. 2. The Examiner withdrew the § 112 (pre-AIA) second paragraph rejection of claims 1, 25–32, 42–46, 52–53, and 55–56. Ans. 3. Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 2 Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates to a multiradio control system for managing radio modules integrated within a wireless communication device. See Spec. ¶ 2.3 The multiradio control system creates an operational schedule for two or more concurrently operating radio modules, and at least one radio module supports Internet protocol. See id. Illustrative Claim Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A method for managing one or more radio modules in a wireless communication device, the one or more radio modules supporting wireless communication over two or more wireless communication mediums, the method comprising: receiving, by a multiradio controller in the wireless communication device, information regarding the two or more wireless communication mediums supported by the one or more radio modules in the wireless communication device; formulating, by the multiradio controller, respective operational schedules for the two or more wireless communication mediums supported by the one or more radio modules, wherein each of the operational schedules includes allowed time periods reserved for communication by a respective one of the two or more wireless communication mediums that are non-overlapping with the time periods reserved for communication by the other of the two or more wireless communication mediums; determining, by the multiradio controller, that at least one of the two or more wireless communication mediums is being used for communicating Internet protocol information; adjusting, by the multiradio controller, in response to the determination that the at least one of the two or more wireless communication mediums is being used for communicating 3 Throughout this Decision, we refer to Appellant’s Published Specification, Application No. U.S. 2010/0329161 A1 published on December 30, 2010. Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 3 Internet protocol information, a maximum transfer packet size for communicating the Internet protocol information to correlate the maximum transfer packet size with the allowed time periods reserved for communication by the at least one of the two or more wireless communication mediums; and providing, by the multiradio controller, the operational schedules for the two or more wireless communication mediums to the one or more radio modules for communicating according to the operational schedules, wherein the adjusted maximum transfer packet size for communicating the Internet protocol information is included in at least one of the operational schedules. Appeal Br. 27 (Claims App.). REFERENCES AND REJECTION Claims 1, 25–46, and 52–56 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Tao (US 2007/0070961 A1; pub. Mar. 29, 2007), in view of Meylan (US 7,899,396 B2; iss. Mar. 1, 2011). Appellant’s Contentions4 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), because the combination of Tao and Meylan fails to establish a sufficient case of obviousness with respect to the required limitations of independent claim 1. Appeal Br. 11. 4 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Reply Brief filed December 10, 2019 (“Reply Br.”); the Appeal Brief filed August 22, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”); Final Office Action mailed January 23, 2019 (“Final Act.”); Advisory Action Before the Filing of an Appeal Brief mailed April 8, 2019 (“Advisory Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 11, 2019 (“Ans.”). Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 4 Issue Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious because the combination fails to teach or suggest the argued limitation? Analysis 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Rejection of Exemplary Claim 15 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. The Examiner has provided a comprehensive response, supported by sufficient evidence, to each of the contentions raised by Appellant. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 3–27). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments regarding representative claim 1 for emphasis as follows. A. Tao The Examiner finds that Tao teaches a multiradio controller because Tao discloses a radio for Bluetooth and a radio for WLAN; therefore, the Examiner determines that there needs to be at least a controller to control both the radio for Bluetooth and the radio for WLAN. Ans. 8; Final Act. 16 (citing Tao ¶ 6). The Examiner finds that Tao teaches formulating operational schedules because Tao discloses a Bluetooth transceiver is active for 1.25 ms and then inactive for 2.5 ms, and a WLAN transceiver is active during the time that the Bluetooth transceiver is inactive. Ans. 8–9 (citing Tao ¶ 6). 5 Claims 25–46 and 52–56 are not argued separately from claim 1 in the Appeal Brief and will not be addressed separately. Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 5 Appellant argues that Tao does not teach the limitation “multiradio controller” because Tao fails to disclose a central multiradio controller that centrally determines IP information locally communicated by radio modules. Appeal Br. 14–15. Appellant also argues that Tao does not teach formulating operational schedules because Tao fails to disclose operational schedules. Id. We disagree with Appellant. We agree with the Examiner that the Specification does not disclose specific hardware associated with the limitation “multiradio controller.” Ans. 21. Instead, the Specification only describes the multiradio controller to formulate operational schedules for one or two or more communication mediums using non-limiting, exemplary language, such as “at least one embodiment” “the example of,” “may,” etc. Reply Br. 15–16 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 75, 98–100). We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s determination that Tao teaches a “multiradio controller” when it discloses the functionality of a “multiradio controller.” Ans. 20. Moreover, Tao teaches the Bluetooth transceiver is active for 1.25 ms and then inactive for 2.5 ms, and the WLAN transceiver is active during the time that the Bluetooth transceiver is inactive, which teaches the limitation “formulating. . . respective operational schedules for the two or more wireless communication mediums.” Ans. 8–9 (citing Tao ¶ 6). Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s findings that Tao teaches the limitations “multiradio controller” and “formulating. . . operational schedules.” Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 6 B. The Combination of Tao and Meylan The Examiner finds Meylan teaches a multiradio controller because Meylan discloses a radio for Bluetooth and a radio for WLAN; thus, the Examiner determines that there needs to be at least a controller to control both the radio for Bluetooth and the radio for WLAN. Ans. 9; Final Act. 19 (citing Meylan col. 6, ll. 44–57). The Examiner also finds Meylan teaches formulating operational schedules because Meylan discloses a cellular phone exchanges VoIP packets with WLAN and forwards the VoIP packets to an earpiece via Bluetooth. Ans. 9–10; Final Act. 18–19 (citing Meylan col. 6, ll. 44–57). The Examiner finds that Tao, instead of Meylan, teaches adjusting a maximum transfer packet size. Ans. 9. The Examiner further determines that Meylan would have to perform a step to adjust the maximum transfer packet size for communicating the Internet protocol information to avoid collision with Bluetooth transmissions. Id. Appellant argues that Meylan does not teach the limitations “multiradio controller,” “formulating operational schedules,” and “adjusting MTU size” as claimed (hereinafter “disputed limitations”). Appeal Br. 17– 18. However, the Examiner finds that Tao, rather than Meylan, teaches the disputed limitations. See Final Act. 16–19. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments amount to a misplaced attack on Meylan, where the Examiner relies upon Tao to teach the disputed limitations. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We also disagree with Appellant that Meylan does not teach a multiradio controller because we note that Figure 9 of Meylan, though not Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 7 relied upon by the Examiner, teaches the multiradio controller. Meylan’s Figure 9 is reproduced below (Figure 9 shows that controller 990, as a multiradio controller, controls both WLAN device 960 and Bluetooth Device 970). Modified Figure 9 of Meylan illustrates controller 990 controls both WLAN device 960 and Bluetooth Device 970. Accordingly, based on the evidence before us, Appellant does not persuade us of error because Tao teaches the disputed limitations. C. Honkanen The Examiner concludes that Honkanen (US 2006/0135076 A1; pub. June 22, 2006) has been provided to Appellant, throughout the prosecution Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 8 history of the case, to show the level of skill of a person having ordinary skill in the art. Ans. 10–12. Appellant argues that Honkanen cited in the Advisory Action is not combinable with Tao because Tao adjusts WLAN transmission in response to announcement or indication of an impending transmission, this would prevent Honkanen from adjusting the schedule in advance. Appeal Br. 23. In addition, Appellant argues that the combination of Honkanen, Tao, and Meylan would destroy the intended purpose of the Honkanen’s radio access method because Tao’s method of operation would prevent Honkanen from adjusting the schedule in advance of using it in the radio. Id. at 23–25. We need not decide the issue of combinability of Honkanen with Tao and Meylan because Honkanen was not used in the rejection. D. Reply Brief Appellant presents for the first time in the Reply Brief new arguments against the rejection of the claim 1. See e.g., Reply Br. 4–13, 14– 18. Appellant has not shown good cause for raising the new arguments, thus we decline to consider an argument raised for the first time in the Reply Brief, as the Examiner has not been provided a chance to respond. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2018). Nonetheless, the Examiner finds Tao’s managing active and inactive time of the Bluetooth Link and the WLAN link teaches the limitations “managing one or more radio modules in a wireless communication device, the one or more radio modules supporting wireless communication over two or more wireless communication medium,” “formulating . . . respective operational schedules for the two or more wireless communication mediums,” and “providing. . . the operational schedules for the two or more Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 9 wireless communication mediums to the one or more radio modules” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 16 (citing Tao ¶ 6). Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s findings. See Reply Br. 4–6, 7, 9–10 (citing Tao ¶¶ 47–49, 64). The Examiner also finds that Tao teaches a multiradio controller because Tao discloses a wireless communication apparatus with a radio for Bluetooth and a radio for WLAN, and there needs to be at least a multiradio controller to control the radio for Bluetooth and the radio for WLAN. Ans. 8. Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s findings. See Reply Br. 6, 8–12 (citing Tao ¶¶ 47–49, 53, 61, 64). The Examiner finds Meylan’s cellphone exchanges VoIP packets with WLAN and forwards VoIP packets via Bluetooth teaches “determining… that at least one of the two or more wireless communication mediums is being used for communicating Internet protocol information” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 18–19 (citing Meylan Abstract and col. 6, ll. 44– 57). Appellant does not rebut the Examiner’s findings. See Reply Br. 8–10 (citing Tao ¶¶ 47–49, 64). Based on this record, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1, and claims 25–46 and 52–56 falling therewith (Appeal Br. 2) over Tao and Meylan. Appeal 2020-001428 Application 12/681,492 10 CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 25–46, and 52–56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the combined teachings and suggestions of the cited references. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 25–46, 52–56 103(a) Tao, Meylan 1, 25–46, 52–56 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). AFFIRMED