Mahmoud Watfa et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardOct 2, 2019

14026546 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Oct. 2, 2019)

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. 14/026,546 09/13/2013 Mahmoud Watfa 11475US02 1025 14868 7590 10/02/2019 Patent Docketing 200 Bellevue Parkway, Suite 300 Attention: Docketing Wilmington, DE 19809 EXAMINER CALLAHAN, PAUL E ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2437 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/02/2019 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): docketing@interdigital.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte MAHMOUD WATFA, GUANZHOU WANG, SAAD AHMAD, PASCAL M. ADJAKPLE, and ULISES OLVERA-HERNANDEZ ____________________ Appeal 2018-008300 Application 14/026,546 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2018-008300 Application 14/026,546 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction The Application is directed to wireless communication, including “offloading traffic from a third generation partnership project (3GPP) access network to a non-3GPP access point (AP).” Spec. ¶ 4. Claims 1–20 are pending; claims 1 and 11 are independent. Appeal Br. 20–23. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (emphases added): 1. A method for offloading traffic from a third generation partnership project (3GPP) access network to a non-3GPP access point (AP) of a non-3GPP access network, the method comprising: a first 3GPP access network entity receiving traffic associated with a wireless transmit receive unit (WTRU), the traffic including: (1) traffic destined for the WTRU, and (2) traffic originating from the WTRU; on a condition that subscription information is received by a second 3GPP access network entity and indicates that the received traffic is subject to offload between the 3GPP access network and the non-3GPP access network, the first 3GPP access network entity forwarding the traffic destined for the WTRU to the non-3GPP AP, such that the traffic destined for the WTRU is communicated wirelessly and directly between the WTRU and the non-3GPP AP, wherein the subscription information includes indications of conditions for offloading traffic associated with the WTRU, and wherein the non-3GPP AP is a WiFi AP. References and Rejections Claims 1–9 and 11–19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Horn (US 2011/0235546 A1; Sept. 29, 2011). Final Act. 7. Appeal 2018-008300 Application 14/026,546 3 Claims 10 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Horn and Gu (US 2014/0011514 A1; Jan. 9, 2014). Final Act. 11. ANALYSIS Appellant argues Horn does not anticipate claim 1 because the reference “fails to teach the claimed first 3GPP2 network access entity that: (1) receives both traffic destined for and traffic originating from a WTRU3,” and “(2) that forwards the traffic destined for the WTRU to the non-3GPP AP.” Appeal Br. 9. Particularly, Appellant contends “[n]either of Horn’s GGSN4 or L-GW5 has a communication link to a WiFi AP, which means that none of Horn’s GGSN or L-GW forward traffic destined for a WTRU in the manner recited in claim 1.” Appeal Br. 8. The Examiner maps the recited “3GPP network access entit[ies]” to Horn’s gateways including Horn’s GGSN and L-GW, and finds Horn discloses the gateways will “forward[] the traffic destined for the WTRU to the non-3GPP AP” as claimed: At [0048]-[0050] Horn teaches a local gateway or GGSN that serves as an interface between a packet-based network such as the Internet, and a cellular 3GPP network. Horn explicitly teaches that the GGSN gateway may receive data from a mobile cellular device or WTRU and forwards the data onwards to a cellular network, or vice-versa. Importantly, Horn teaches in [0089] that the GGSN or local gateways may forward traffic 2 “[T]hird generation partnership project (3GPP).” Spec. ¶ 4. 3 “[W]ireless transmit/receive unit[s] (WTRUs).” Spec. ¶ 4. 4 “[G]ateway [general packet radio service] support node (GGSN).” Horn ¶ 10. 5 “[L]ocal gateways or L-GWs.” Horn ¶ 10. Appeal 2018-008300 Application 14/026,546 4 from a mobile device WRTU to an Internet WiFi access point (i.e., a WiFi router or a WiMax router). Ans. 8 (emphasis added). We find the Examiner’s rejection is in error. There is no mention of traffic being forwarded—from a 3GPP access network entity to a non-3GPP access point that is a WiFi AP—in the cited portions of Horn. See Horn Fig. 3; ¶¶ 48–50, 89. These portions of Horn disclose the gateway will store connection information for a mobile device, so that “[d]evice mobility during active data services is facilitated.” Horn ¶ 49. Horn’s facilitating mobility, however, is not the same as actually forwarding traffic; without speculation, we see no support for the Examiner’s contention that Horn discloses traffic forwarding as claimed. See Horn ¶¶ 48–50; see also Final Act. 8. Further, to the extent Horn discusses a WiFi access point, Horn describes the use of “a WiFi network with one or more wireless IP routers” as a separate embodiment without further explanation. Horn ¶¶ 89, 105. Horn provides no description of communication (such as forwarding messages) between the WiFi access point and a server comprising a 3GPP network access entity as claimed. See id.; see also Reply Br. 9 (“Horn merely discloses that a UE connects to a wireless router to access a local IP network.”). Accordingly, we agree with Appellant that Horn does not disclose “the first 3GPP access network entity forwarding the traffic destined for the WTRU to the non-3GPP AP . . . wherein the non-3GPP AP is a WiFi AP,” as recited in claim 1. Independent claim 11 recites similar limitations. See Final Act. 10 (“Claims 11-19 recite substantially the same limitations as claims 1-9”). We do not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of Appeal 2018-008300 Application 14/026,546 5 independent claims 1 and 11, or the anticipation and obviousness rejections of the dependent claims thereon. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–20 is reversed. REVERSED