Olivier Marco et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 10, 2019

14848687 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 10, 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.
14/848,687 09/09/2015 Olivier Marco 14-IC-0371-US01 2555
102469 7590 09/10/2019
PARKER JUSTISS, P.C./Nvidia
14241 DALLAS PARKWAY
SUITE 620
DALLAS, TX 75254
EXAMINER
SMITH, MARCUS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/10/2019 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):
docket@pj-iplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte OLIVIER MARCO, NIYAS NAZAR SAIT, LUC REVARDEL,
JONATHAN MARTIN, FLAVIEN DELORME, and
NEDA NIKAEIN
___________________

Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,6871
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ERIC S. FRAHM, and
MICHAEL T. CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–18 (see Final Act. 5–14). We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 According to Appellants, NVIDIA Corporation is the real party in interest
(App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
2
We affirm-in-part.
Appellants’ Disclosed Invention
Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention relates to “a system and
method of providing user-equipment-based quality of service enforcement
and control for real-time traffic” (Spec. ¶ 1; see also Title; Abstract). More
specifically, during times of high congestion, certain services such as voice-
over-Internet-Protocol (VoIP) calls or gaming applications can be given high
priority handling in a communication network (Spec. ¶ 2; Figs. 1–5). In
some embodiments, Appellants disclose using standardized attention (AT)
commands, which are available when using 3GPP access (Spec. ¶ 7), to
control a quality-of-service (QoS) that prioritizes certain data packets (Spec.
¶ 47; Figs. 2, 5; claims 5, 7). The AT commands can be either standardized
(claims 5, 7; Spec. ¶ 37) or proprietary (claims 5, 6; Spec. ¶ 37).
Illustrative Claims
Illustrative claims 1, 5, and 11 under appeal are reproduced below
with bracketed lettering and emphases added:
1. A system for enforcing quality of service, comprising:
a host configured to process a plurality of applications; and
a modem coupled to said host and configured to interface
with data networks and having [A] a non-access stratum
configured to prioritize real time data packets and selectively to
discard data packets based on a defined criteria.

App. Br. 15 (Claims Appendix).

5. A method of configuring internal quality of service,
comprising:
making a quality of service request from a radio interface
layer;
translating said quality of service request into an AT
command;
providing said AT command to an AT command
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
3
interpreter;
translating said AT command into a quality of service rule;
and
providing said quality of service rule to an internal quality
of service controller.

App. Br. 15–16 (Claims Appendix).

11. A method of enforcing internal quality of service,
comprising:
[B] identifying data packets internal to a non-access
stratum of a modem;
associating a quality of service policy to said data packets
internal to said non-access stratum of a modem; and
applying said quality of service policy to said data packets
internal to said non-access stratum of a modem.

App. Br. 16 (Claims Appendix).

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claims 5–10 and 14 as being unpatentable
under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point
out and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the
invention. Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 3–4. The Examiner determines (Final Act.
5–6; Ans. 3) the term “AT” used in the terms “AT command” and “AT
command interpreter” is indefinite because there is no clear definition
provided in Appellants’ Specification.
(2) The Examiner rejected claims 11–16 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. §
102(a)(1) as anticipated by Sajadieh (WO 2013/137872 A1; published Sept.
19, 2013). Final Act. 6–8; Ans. 4–6.2

2 Although the Examiner only lists claims 11–16 as being rejected in the
heading of the statement of the rejection (see Final Act. 6; Ans. 4), the
Examiner addresses claim 18 on the merits in the body of the rejection (see
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
4
(3) The Examiner rejected claims 5–10 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as
anticipated by Kim (US 2017/0041854 A1; published Feb. 9, 2017). Final
Act. 9–10; Ans. 7–8.
(4) The Examiner rejected claims 1–4 and 17 under § 103 as obvious
over the Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat (US 2014/0071888 A1; published Mar.
13, 2014). Final Act. 10–14; Ans. 8–9.
Appellants’ Contentions
(1) Appellants contend (App. Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–3) the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 5–10 and 14 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b), because (i) “the meaning of the terms ‘AT’ and ‘AT
Command Interpreter’ found in pending Claims 5-7 is apparent to one of
ordinary skill in the pertinent art (modems) at the time of the invention”
(App. Br. 7); (ii) one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that the
term AT, coined by Dennis Hayes, the inventor of the Hayes attention (AT)
command set, is now used as a formal standard in the industry, and was
introduced to the Telecommunications Industry Association/Electronics
Industries Alliance (TIA/EIA) as standard (TIA/EIA-602) entitled “Data
Transmission Systems and Equipment – Serial Asynchronous Automatic
Dialing and Control” (Reply Br. 2–3); and therefore (iii) “one of ordinary
skill in the modem art would not interpret the recitation of ‘AT command’
and ‘AT command interpreter’ in pending Claim 5 as Motorola’s

Final Act. 8; Ans. 6), and also includes claim 18 in the listing of claims
rejected as being anticipated by Sajadieh in the Answer (see Ans. 16, 20).
Furthermore, Appellants present arguments to all claims 11–16 and 18 in the
Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 7, 10) and Reply Brief (see Reply Br. 4).
Therefore, we consider this as harmless error, and review the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 11–16 and 18.
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
5
‘Asynchronous Task Command Interface’ in U.S. Patent No. 6,360243 to
Lindsley (‘Lindsley’) as the Examiner’s Answer purports” (Reply Br. 3).
(2) Appellants contend (App. Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 3–4) the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 11–16 and 18 as being anticipated by Sajadieh for
numerous reasons, including (i) Sajadieh fails to disclose, inherently or
expressly, “identifying data packets internal to a non-access stratum of a
modem” (limitation [B]), as recited in claim 11 (App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 3–4);
and (ii) although Sajadieh discloses a control plane including a NAS layer
5060 that supports session management, Sajadieh fails to disclose identifying
packets internal to a NAS layer, as recited in claim 11 (App. Br. 8–9).
(3) Appellants contend (App. Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 4) the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 5–10 as being anticipated by Kim for numerous
reasons, including (i) Kim fails to disclose, inherently or expressly, “AT
commands,” as recited in claim 5 (App. Br. 11–12); and (ii) Kim’s service
request message is not equivalent to the recited “AT command” (App. Br.
11); (iii) the “signal flow of Kim’s ACDC procedure clearly is not an AT
command set (or interpreter)” (Reply Br. 4), as recited in claim 5; and (iv)
even if the Examiner is correct that Lindsley’s ATCI is equivalent to the AT
command set, Lindsley’s ATCI “does not disclose Kim’s signal flow for its
ACDC procedure” (Reply Br. 4).
(4) Appellants contend (App. Br. 12–14) the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1–4 and 17 as being obvious over the combination of
Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat for numerous reasons, including (i) Sajadieh fails
to disclose non-access stratum data packets, as recited in limitation [A] of
claim 1 (App. Br. 12–13); (ii) Khay-Ibbat fails to cure the deficiencies
argued as to Sajadieh (App. Br. 13); and therefore (iii) the combination of
Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat fails to establish a prima facie case of, or a
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
6
conclusion of obviousness for, claim 1 (App. Br. 13–14).
Issues on Appeal
(1) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 5–10 and 14 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) based on determining that the
limitations “AT command” and “AT command interpreter” (claim 5) are
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter that Appellants regard as the invention?
(2) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 11–16 and 18 under
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sajadieh, because Sajadieh fails to
disclose limitation [B], as recited in claim 11?
(3) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 5–10 under § 102(a)(2),
because Kim fails to disclose using “an AT command” and/or “an AT
command interpreter,” as recited in claim 5?
(4) Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1–4 and 17 under § 103
as being obvious over the combination of Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat, because
the combination fails to disclose or suggest limitation [A], as recited in claim
1?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections (Final Act. 5–14; Ans.
3–11) in light of Appellants’ contentions in the Appeal Brief (App. Br. 5–
14) and the Reply Brief (Reply Br. 2–5) that the Examiner has erred, as well
as the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief
(see Ans. 12–21). We agree with Appellants’ first contentions listed above
as to the rejection under § 112(b), and Appellants’ second and third
contentions listed above as to the as to the anticipation rejection over
Sajadieh and/or Kim. We disagree with Appellants’ fourth contentions
listed above as to the as to the obviousness rejection over Sajadieh and
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
7
Khay-Ibbat.
Indefiniteness Rejection
With regard to the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), we agree with
Appellants (App. Br. 5–7; Reply Br. 2–3) that one of ordinary skill in the art
would be able to ascertain the meaning of the terms “AT command” and
“AT command interpreter” as used in claim 5 on appeal.
With regard to the terms “AT” used in claim 5, we conclude the
disputed term to be broad, but not indefinite. This conclusion is based on
our reading of paragraphs 7, 35, 37, and 47 and claims 5 through 7 of
Appellants’ Specification as originally filed, taken with Figures 2 and 5,
which we find as revealing and persuasive as the extrinsic evidence cited by
Appellants.
In view of Appellants’ Specification, as well as the extrinsic evidence
cited by Appellants, we conclude that claims 5 through 10 and 14
particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which
Appellants regard as the invention. See 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). Furthermore,
we conclude that “those skilled in the art would understand what is claimed
when the claim is read in light of the specification.” Orthokinetics, Inc. v.
Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citations
omitted). The terms “AT command” and “AT command interpreter” are
used in claim 5 on appeal to describe commonly known modem commands.
However, the term “AT” is also broadly supported by the extrinsic evidence
and the claims on appeal themselves as including or operating on any Hayes
attention command. We agree with Appellants that “one of ordinary skill in
the modem arts would clearly interpret the recitation of ‘AT command’ and
‘AT command interpreter’ in pending Claim 5 as Hayes’ (TIA/EIA-602) AT
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
8
command set” (Reply Br. 2–3). Accordingly, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s indefiniteness rejection of claims 5–10 and 14 under § 112(b).
Anticipation Rejections
Anticipation of Claims 11–16 and 18 Over Sajadieh
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 6–8) in light
of Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 3–4) that the Examiner
has erred, as well as the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments in
the Briefs (Ans. 16–20). We concur with Appellants’ contentions (App. Br.
8–10; Reply Br. 4) that the Examiner erred in finding claims 11–16 and 18
anticipated by Sajadieh because Sajadieh fails to disclose, inherently or
expressly, each and every element as set forth in claim 11, namely limitation
[B], including “identifying data packets” in a non-access stratum (NAS)
layer.
The Examiner is required to provide Appellants reasonable notice as
to the basis of a rejection. The notice requirement is set forth by 35 U.S.C.
§ 132:
[T]he PTO carries its procedural burden of establishing a
prima facie case when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in
“notify[ing] the applicant ... [by] stating the reasons for [its]
rejection, or objection or requirement, together with such
information and references as may be useful in judging of the
propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.”
35 U.S.C. § 132. That section “is violated when a rejection is
so uninformative that it prevents the applicant from recognizing
and seeking to counter the grounds for rejection.” Chester v.
Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
See In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
“A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in
the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior
art reference.” Verdegaal Bros. v. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
9
628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). To establish anticipation, every element and
limitation of the claimed invention must be found in a single prior art
reference, arranged as in the claim. Karsten Mfg. Corp. v. Cleveland Golf
Co., 242 F.3d 1376, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “[A]bsence from the reference
of any claimed element negates anticipation.” Kloster Speedsteel AB v.
Crucible, Inc., 793 F.2d 1565, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
The Examiner has the initial burden to set forth the basis for any
rejection so as to put the patent applicant on notice of the reasons why the
applicant is not entitled to a patent on the claim scope that he seeks — the
so-called “prima facie case.” In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (the initial
burden of proof is on the USPTO “to produce the factual basis for its
rejection of an application under sections 102 and 103”) (quoting In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1016 (CCPA 1967)).
In the instant case, the Examiner’s notification to Appellants of the
determination of the anticipation of independent claim 11 is found at pages 6
through 7 of the Final Rejection, as well as pages 4 through 5 and 16
through 19 of the Answer. Limitation [B] in claim 11 requires “identifying
data packets internal to a non-access stratum of a modem.”
The Examiner maps the limitations of claim 11 to Sajadieh’s Figure 5
and paragraphs 18 and 21 through 24 in making the rejection (see Final Act.
6–7; Ans. 4–5, 16–19). More specifically, the Examiner maps limitation [B]
to Sajadieh’s paragraph 22 (Final Act. 6; Ans. 4). And, the Examiner’s
rejection (see Final Act. 5–6; Ans. 4–5) does not clearly address how or why
Sajadieh’s (i) Multiple-Persona (MP) prioritizing/scheduler 5030 described
in paragraph 22, which operates on QoS requirements of personas to manage
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
10
traffic in the control plane (including NAS 5050); or (ii) “[t]he EPS session
management (ESM) procedures within the NAS layer 5050” that are
described in paragraph 22 as “tak[ing] into account the multiple personality
dimension of the mobile device” discloses “identifying data packets internal
to a non-access stratum of a modem” as recited in claim 11. Most
importantly, the Examiner’s rejection (see Final Act. 6; Ans. 4) fails to
directly address the limitation of “identifying data packets,” as recited in
each of claims 11 and 12–16 depending therefrom. The Examiner’s attempt
to clarify or correct this error in the Answer (see Ans. 16–19) also falls short.
Just because Sajadieh discloses receiving MP control information identifying
QoS requirements for personas in the mobile device (see Ans. 16) does not
teach “identifying data packets internal to a non-access stratum of a
modem,” as recited in claim 11.
The Examiner’s reasoning, that “Appellant’s specification also
teaches NAS layer (paragraph 29) with EPS session management block to
handle[] QoS requests (paragraph 35), which is similar to the Sajadieh
invention” (Ans. 19), is speculative and unsupported by evidence in the
record. Paragraph 35 of Appellants’ Specification describes that “QoS
requests are handled in the NAS by an AT command interpreter” which then
“initializes a protocol transaction using an EPS session management (ESM)
block 313 to request the establishment of a dedicated EPS bearer,” but
Sajadieh is silent as to, and the Examiner has not adequately shown Sajadieh
discloses (implicitly or explicitly), “identifying data packets internal to a
non-access stratum of a modem” as recited in each of claims 11–16.
Although paragraph 19 of Sajadieh discloses that “the Non-Access Stratum
(NAS) 4110 manages mobility support of the mobile and supports session
management procedures,” paragraph 19 also discloses that:
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
11
The Radio Resource Control (RRC) 4120 provides for the
reception and processing of system information related to the
non-access stratum (NAS) layer, reception and process of system
information related to the access stratum (AS), paging,
establishment, maintenance and release of RRC connections
between the mobile device and the wireless 20 network, security
functions including key management, establishment,
configuration, maintenance and release of point to point radio
bearers, mobility functions, QoS management functions,
measurement reporting and NAS message transfer to/from NAS
and to/from the mobile device message transfer to/from NAS and
to/from the mobile device.

Sajadieh ¶ 19 (emphases added). And, Sajadieh is silent as to whether any
of the (i) session management procedures; (ii) processing of system
information related to the NAS layer; or (iii) QoS management functions,
operate to “identify[] data packets internal to a non-access stratum of a
modem” as recited in each of claims 11–16.
We find no such disclosure in Sajadieh to support the Examiner’s
position that the subject matter (e.g., limitation [B] recited in claim 11
supra), is anticipated by Sajadieh. We will not resort to speculation or
assumptions to cure the deficiencies in the Examiner’s fact finding. See In
re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA 1967); Ex parte Braeken,
54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI 1999) (unpublished) (“The review
authorized by 35 U.S.C. [§] 134 is not a process whereby the examiner . . .
invite[s] the [B]oard to examine the application and resolve patentability in
the first instance.”). As such, we find that the Examiner improperly relies
upon Sajadieh to disclose and anticipate the disputed claim limitation. See
Warner at 1017.
Therefore, we agree with Appellants (see App. Br. 7–10; Reply Br. 3–
4) that the Examiner has not shown Sajadieh anticipates at least limitation
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
12
[B], the packet identification step, recited in claims 11–16 and 18. As a
result, Appellants have shown the Examiner has not (i) made a prima facie
case for the anticipation of claims 11–16 and 18, and ultimately, (ii) shown
all of the claim limitations of claims 11–16 and 18 are disclosed by Sajadieh,
and (iii) made a proper showing of anticipation for claims 11–16 and 18.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 11–16 and 18 based on Sajadieh.
Anticipation of Claims 5–10 Over Kim
Based on our interpretation of the terms “AT command” and “AT
command interpreter” as including attention commands or Hayes’
commands as set forth in the TIA/EIA-602 standard, we agree with
Appellants’ contentions (see supra Decision 6 citing App. Br. 10–12; Reply
Br. 4) regarding the anticipation rejection of claims 5–10 over Kim.
Namely, Kim fails to disclose AT commands or an AT command interpreter
for translating a QoS request into an AT command which is then provided to
an AT command interpreter. Additionally, as discussed below, Kim is not
prior art to Appellants’ invention recited in claims 5–10.
Notably, neither Kim’s (i) publication date of February 9, 2017; nor
(ii) effective PCT filing date under § 371 of July 22, 2016, pre-date
Appellants’ filing date of September 9, 2015. Accordingly, Kim needs to
rely on the benefit of the various filing dates of its underlying U.S.
Provisional Applications, all six of which stem from a common
Specification and pre-date Appellants’ filing date of September 9, 2015. In
relation to determining what the effective filing date of a prior art reference
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
13
is under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2), the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure
states:
If the issue date of the U.S. patent or publication date of
the U.S. patent application publication or WIPO published
application is not before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention, it may be applicable as prior art under AIA 35 U.S.C.
102(a)(2) if it was “effectively filed” before the effective filing
date of the claimed invention in question with respect to the
subject matter relied upon to reject the claim. MPEP § 2152.01
discusses the “effective filing date” of a claimed invention. AIA
35 U.S.C. 102(d) sets forth the criteria to determine when subject
matter described in a U.S. patent document was “effectively
filed” for purposes of AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2).
MPEP 2154.01 (emphases added). And, with regard to determining when
subject matter was effectively filed under 35 U.S.C. § 102(d), the Manual
of Patent Examining Procedure states that “AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(d) requires
that a prior-filed application to which a priority or benefit claim is made
must describe the subject matter from the U.S. patent document relied
upon in a rejection.” MPEP 2154.01(b) (emphases added).
As such, for Kim to qualify as prior art to the claimed invention, the
record would need to show that the subject matter recited in Appellants’
claim 5, including translating a QoS request into an AT command which is
then provided to an AT command interpreter, is described in at least one of
the six provisional applications. In the instant case, the Examiner fails to
show, and we do not find, that (i) any of the provisional applications
describe the subject matter of claim 5 recited in Kim, and (ii) Kim is
entitled to the filing date of any of the provisional applications. As such,
Kim’s earliest effective filing date is November 10, 2015, and, therefore,
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
14
after the September 9, 2015 filing date of Appellants’ application.
Accordingly, Kim does not qualify as prior art to the claimed invention.
In view of the foregoing, we do not sustain the Examiner’s
anticipation of claims 5–10 over Kim.
Obviousness Rejection
Appellants have failed to show that the Examiner erred in determining
that the combination of Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat teaches or suggests the
system for enforcing quality of service, as recited in claims 1–4 and 17,
including limitation [A] as set forth in claim 1. Specifically, Appellants’
contention that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–4 and 17 as being
obvious over the combination of Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat because Sajadieh
fails to disclose non-access stratum data packets, as recited in limitation [A]
of claim 1 (App. Br. 12–13), is unpersuasive. In point of fact, Appellants
admit that “Sajadieh discloses a control plane including a NAS layer [NAS
layer 5050]” (App. Br. 8), and paragraph 22 of “Sajadieh discloses that its
NAS control plane 5060 ‘supports session management procedures,
establishment and maintenance of IP connectivity’ and ‘provides for the
reception and processing of system information’” (App. Br. 9). Although
Appellants contend (App. Br. 8–9) Sajadieh fails to disclose identifying non-
access stratum (NAS) data packets, this argument only addresses Sajadieh
individually, and not the combination of Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat.
Therefore, such an argument to the individual references is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
Finally, Appellants’ contention that Khay-Ibbat fails to cure the
deficiencies argued as to Sajadieh (App. Br. 13), is unpersuasive, In point of
fact, Khay-Ibbat teaches buffering packet data and then prioritizing uplink
data packets based on a quality of service (see Khay-Ibbat ¶¶ 63, 78, and
Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
15
92).
As a result of the foregoing, Appellants’ ultimate contention, that the
combination of Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat fails to establish a prima facie case
of, or a conclusion of obviousness for, claim 1 (App. Br. 13–14), is
unpersuasive.
In view of the foregoing, Appellants have not adequately shown the
combination of Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat fails to teach or suggest limitation
[A] as set forth in claim 1, and subsequently, that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1–4 and 17 as being obvious over the combination of
Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5–10 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b), for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim
the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
(2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11–16 and 18 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sajadieh because Sajadieh
fails to disclose disputed limitation [B] recited in claim 11.
(3) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5–10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim, because (a) Kim is not prior art;
and (b) Kim fails to disclose the disputed limitations, “AT command” and
“AT command interpreter,” as recited in claim 5.
(4) Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in rejecting claims
1–4 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over the
combination of Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat.

Appeal 2018-008954
Application 14/848,687
16
DECISION
(1) We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 5–10 and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 112(b), as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out
and distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellants regard as the
invention, because the claims are definite, supported by the Specification.,
and clear to a person of ordinary skill in the art.
(2) We reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejections of (a) claims
11–16 and 18 over Sajadieh; and (b) claims 5–10 over Kim.
(3) We affirm the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–4 and
17 over the combination of Sajadieh and Khay-Ibbat.
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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART