Subbu Ponnuswamy

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 13, 2020

14926804 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2020)

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. 14/926,804 10/29/2015 Subbu Ponnuswamy H00010NP 6553 138582 7590 08/13/2020 Law Office of Brian Short (Facebook) P.O. Box 641867 San Jose, CA 95164-1867 EXAMINER ESMAEILIAN, MAJID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/13/2020 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): brian.iplaw@gmail.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com short.br@gmail.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SUBBU PONNUSWAMY Appeal 2019-000104 Application 14/926,804 Technology Center 2400 Before BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, MICHAEL J. ENGLE, and SCOTT RAEVSKY, Administrative Patent Judges. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. 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(a). Appellant identifies KodaCloud, Inc. as the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 1. Appeal 2019-000104 Application 14/926,804 2 TECHNOLOGY The application relates to “corrective actions . . . in response to detecting a decrease in performance of a wireless connection.” Spec. ¶ 1. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIMS Claims 1 and 15 are illustrative and reproduced below with certain limitations at issue emphasized: 1. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of operations comprising: determining a current performance level associated with a wireless connection; making a comparison between the current performance level associated with the wireless connection and a prior performance level associated with the wireless connection; selecting a corrective action, based on a result of the comparison, from a plurality of corrective actions; executing the corrective action. 15. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware processors, causes performance of operations comprising: attempting and successfully completing an 802.11 authentication process to associate a client device with an access point; attempting and not successfully completing an Internet Protocol (IP) address assignment process to receive an IP address assignment; responsive to not successfully completing the IP address assignment process: re-executing the 802.11 authentication process to associate the client device with the access point, without first re-attempting the IP address assignment process. Appeal 2019-000104 Application 14/926,804 3 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art references: Name Number Date Bajic US 2007/0002833 A1 Jan. 4, 2007 Biswas US 8,339,991 B2 Dec. 25, 2012 Bugenhagen US 2008/0052628 A1 Feb. 28, 2008 Kholaif US 2012/0257536 A1 Oct. 11, 2012 Lundsgaard US 2011/0216692 A1 Sept. 8, 2011 McCann US 2013/0121325 A1 May 16, 2013 REJECTIONS The Examiner makes the following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103: Claims References Final Act. 1–14 Lundsgaard, Bugenhagen 4 15, 16, 18, 20 McCann, Bajic 22 17 McCann, Bajic, Biswas 25 19 McCann, Bajic, Kholaif 27 ISSUES 1. Did the Examiner err in finding Lundsgaard teaches or suggests “making a comparison between the current performance level associated with the wireless connection and a prior performance level associated with the wireless connection,” as recited in independent claim 1? 2. Did the Examiner err in finding Bajic teaches or suggests “responsive to not successfully completing the IP address assignment process: re-executing the 802.11 authentication process to associate the client device with the access point, without first re-attempting the IP address assignment process,” as recited in independent claim 15? Appeal 2019-000104 Application 14/926,804 4 ANALYSIS Claims 1–14 Appellant argues: Claim 1 recites, “making a comparison between the current performance level associated with the wireless connection and a prior performance level associated with the wireless connection.” This element requires a comparison between a current performance level and a prior performance level associated with the same wireless connection. Lundsgaard does not disclose this element of Claim 1. Reply Br. 1. According to Appellant, Lundsgaard instead teaches “only two types of comparison: (a) comparing current signal strength indicator values against each other . . . ; and (b) comparing a signal strength indicator value against a fixed threshold value.” Appeal Br. 5. “None of the comparisons involve prior performance levels. And none of the comparisons involve performance levels for the same wireless connection.” Reply Br. 2. The Examiner finds Lundsgaard’s choosing preferred networks based on exceeding a threshold in the past “essentially” teaches the limitation “since it has previously chosen its current serving access point and now it is determining whether or not to choose another AP [i.e., Access Point] with a better RSSI [i.e., Received Signal Strength Indicator].” Ans. 29. We agree with Appellant. Lundsgaard discloses comparing a current “signal strength indicator value” of one access point to either (a) current signal strength indicator values of other access points or (b) fixed “thresholds.” Lundsgaard ¶¶ 40–41. As Appellant notes, these comparisons involve neither prior performance levels nor performance levels for the same wireless connection. Reply Br. 2. Although we apply the broadest Appeal 2019-000104 Application 14/926,804 5 reasonable interpretation during examination, “[a]bove all, the broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in light of the claims and specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Here, it is not reasonable to construe “making a comparison” with “a prior performance level associated with the wireless connection” to be so broad as including a comparison to Lundsgaard’s fixed threshold. We acknowledge that at some point in the past, the performance level of the same wireless connection might have exactly equaled Lundsgaard’s thresholds (e.g., in Lundsgaard Figure 9, the curve 930 crossing threshold 940 at t1 and crossing threshold 950 at t3). However, the actual comparison disclosed in Lundsgaard is with the threshold, regardless of whether the connection’s performance level previously crossed that threshold. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 11, and their dependent claims 2–10 and 12–14. Claims 15–20 Appellant argues that “[n]owhere does Bajic disclose the ‘responsive to’ element of Claim 15.” Appeal Br. 10. In particular, independent claim 15 recites “responsive to not successfully completing the IP address assignment process: re-executing the 802.11 authentication process to associate the client device with the access point, without first re-attempting the IP address assignment process.” The Examiner finds that “Bajic in para[0126] . . . teaches 802.11 re- authentication . . . in order to get a new client IP address . . . if a device . . . is inactive for some period of time.” Ans. 35. The Examiner further finds that Bajic discloses 802.11 re-authentication and assigning a new IP address “if Appeal 2019-000104 Application 14/926,804 6 the IP address assigned is for another subnet and not the current subnet the wireless device is located in.” Id. at 36. We agree with Appellant. Bajic teaches assigning a new IP address if a device is inactive (¶ 126) or roams to a new subnet (¶¶ 94, 98), but in both instances the device already has an old IP address. Whether later circumstances (e.g., inactivity) resulted in a need for a new IP address does not change the fact that the original IP address assignment had completed successfully and an IP address was assigned. Thus, the Examiner fails to show how Bajic teaches or suggests re-authenticating “responsive to not successfully completing the IP address assignment process.” Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 15 and its dependent claims 16–20. OUTCOME The following table summarizes the outcome of each rejection: Rejected Claims 35 U.S.C. § References Affirmed Reversed 1–14 § 103 Lundsgaard, Bugenhagen 1–142 15, 16, 18, 20 § 103 McCann, Bajic 15, 16, 18, 20 17 § 103 McCann, Bajic, Biswas 17 19 § 103 McCann, Bajic, Kholaif 19 OVERALL 1–20 REVERSED 2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider at least claim 1 in light of the USPTO’s 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7, 2019), which was released after the briefing in this appeal.