Meru Networks

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardApr 29, 2021

2020000702 (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. 14/849,573 09/09/2015 Ajay MALIK FOR-059 9119 88268 7590 04/29/2021 Law Office of Dorian Cartwright P.O. Box 6629 San Jose, CA 95150 EXAMINER PATEL, DHARMESH J ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2465 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): eofficeaction@appcoll.com uspto@cartwrightesq.com vibrantnet@yahoo.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AJAY MALIK, SAURABH BHARGAVA, AVINASH BHAGTANI, and RADHAKRISHNAN SURYANARAYANAN Appeal 2020-000702 Application 14/849,573 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, BETH Z. SHAW, and CARL L. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. SHAW, 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 1–10. See Final Act. 1. 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. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Fortinet, Inc. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-000702 Application 14/849,573 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to an alternative network communication for access point troubleshooting and monitoring. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A computer-implemented method, in an access point in a Wi- Fi communications network, of using alternative networks for troubleshooting or monitoring, the method comprising the steps of: providing access for at least one station over a Wi-Fi channel to connect with a wired backbone network; detecting a triggering event indicative of a communication issue associated with the access point; responsive to the triggering event detection, establishing a Bluetooth channel for communication with the at least one station for collecting data associated with the triggering event; detecting an end to the triggering event; responsive to the triggering event end, resuming access for the at least one station over the Wi-Fi channel. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Hamade US 2013/0208713 A1 Aug. 15, 2013 Zhang US 2014/0235170 A1 Aug. 21, 2014 Mannemala US 2015/0350933 A1 Dec. 3, 2015 Bartholomay US 2014/0137188 A1 May 15, 2014 REJECTIONS Claims 1–4, 6, 7, 9, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang and Hamade. Final Act. 5. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Hamade, and Mannemala. Final Act. 12. Appeal 2020-000702 Application 14/849,573 3 Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Hamade, and Bartholomay. Final Act. 14. OPINION We see no error in the Examiner’s conclusion that claim 1 is obvious over the combination of Zhang and Hamade. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Final Action and Answer. Claim 1 recites, in part, “responsive to the triggering event detection, establishing a Bluetooth channel for communication with the at least one station for collecting data associated with the triggering event.” Claims App’x. Appellant acknowledges that Zhang, in paragraph 27, teaches using Bluetooth when a Wi-Fi connection cannot be established. Appeal Br. 7. Appellant argues that Zhang, however does not teach “additional steps of collecting data associated with the triggering event . . . and then reconnect[ing] once the issue is resolved.” See id. at 7, 8. Yet, as the Examiner finds, and we agree, Zhang teaches that the client device may use a data exchange module 203 to exchange data through an application. See, e.g., Final Act. 3, 6 (citing Zhang ¶¶ 53, 22 (“it may exchange data with the server”), Fig. 4); Final Act. 5 (citing Zhang ¶ 28). Appellant provides insufficient evidence that the Specification or claims limit “collecting data” in a way that, under a broad but reasonable interpretation, is not encompassed by Zhang’s teachings of exchanging data. Further, Appellant does not point us to any portion of the Specification to clarify the term “data associated with the triggering event,” and this data can be any data associated with the station’s communication to Appeal 2020-000702 Application 14/849,573 4 the access point. We decline to interpret this data as being restricted to only specific data that is used to reconnect when the issue is resolved, as implied by Appellant’s argument on pages 7 and 8 of the Brief. Even if we were to interpret this limitation in such a manner, the Examiner relies on the combination of Hamade and Zhang, not Zhang alone, to teach “detecting an end to the triggering event,” and “responsive to the triggering event end, resuming access for the at least one station over the Wi-Fi channel.” See Final Act. 7; Ans. 4. In the Brief, Appellant does not dispute any findings regarding Hamade’s teachings or the propriety of the combination. See Appeal Br. 6–8. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2–10, for which Appellant presents no additional arguments. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections are affirmed. Appeal 2020-000702 Application 14/849,573 5 DECISION SUMMARY Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1–4, 6, 7, 9, 10 103 Zhang, Hamade 1–4, 6, 7, 9, 10 5 103 Zhang, Hamade, Mannemala 5 8 103 Zhang, Hamade, Bartholomay 8 Overall Outcome 1–10 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