TIME WARNER CABLE ENTERPRISES LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 12, 2021

2019006829 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 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. 14/971,382 12/16/2015 Sunmeel Bhumkar TWC15-14(15-33) 1552 156874 7590 05/12/2021 Armis Intellectual Property Law, LLC P.O. Box 1564 Westborough, MA 01581 EXAMINER TOLENTINO, RODERICK ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2439 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/12/2021 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): chris.lutz@armisiplaw.com docket@armisiplaw.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte SUNMEEL BHUMKAR, ZAHEER SYED, SOURABH GUPTA, and SYED AHSAN1 ________________ Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 Technology Center 2400 ________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, and IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–19 and 25–38. Appeal Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). The Board conducts a limited de novo review of the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). We AFFIRM IN PART. 1 Appellant identifies Time Warner Cable Enterprises LLC as the real party in interest. Appeal Brief, 3, filed May 6, 2019 (“Appeal Br.”). Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER Appellant describes the present invention as follows: A first wireless access point notifies a handoff management resource that a second wireless access point is a potential handoff candidate. Subsequent to authentication of the second wireless access point as being a valid handoff candidate, the handoff management resource notifies a mobile communication device that the second wireless access point is a valid handoff option to receive a communication session from the first wireless access point. To perform a handoff, the mobile communication device initiates termination of a wireless communication link with the first wireless access point and communicates with the second wireless access point to establish a new wireless communication link. In furtherance of providing uninterrupted network access, the handoff management resource conveys communication settings information associated with the handed off communication session to the second wireless access point for use over the new wireless communication link. Spec., Abstr. STATEMENT OF THE REJECTIONS Claims 1, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa (US 2009/0191879 A1; published July 30, 2009) and Ma (US 2008/0268844 A1; published Oct. 30, 2008). Final Action 7– 11, mailed Dec. 27, 2018 (“Final Act.”). Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa, Ma, and Wang (US 2008/0233916 Al; published Sept. 25, 2008). Final Act. 11–12.2 2 The Examiner lists claim 33 as being rejected by the same combination of references as claim 2. Final Act. 11. However, claim 33 actually is rejected by the combination of Ichikawa, Ma, Vanderveen, and Wang, as it depends Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 3 Claims 3, 4, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa, Ma, and Friday (US 2006/0187873 A1; published Aug. 24, 2006). Final Act. 12–13. Claims 5, 8–10, 15, 32, and 34–36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa, Ma, and Vanderveen (US 2008/0267407 A1; published Oct. 30, 2008). Final Act. 14–20.3 Claims 6, 7, 17, 31, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa, Ma, Vanderveen, and Haberman (US 2012/0322407 A1; published Dec. 20, 2012). Final Act. 21–24. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa, Ma, and O’hare (US 2016/0286457 A1; published Sept. 29, 2016). Final Act. 24–26. Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa, Ma, O’hare, and Vanderveen. Final Act. 26–27. Claims 18 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Ichikawa. Final Act. 4–6. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Wang. Final Act. 27. Claims 25–27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and Vanderveen. Final Act. 28–30. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa and O’hare. Final Act. 30–32. from claim 32. See Final Act. 18 (wherein claim 32 is rejected by the combination of Ichikawa, Ma, and Vanderveen). 3 The Examiner does not list claim 32 in the heading of this rejection. Final Act. 14. However, the body of the rejection addresses claim 32. Id. at 18–19. Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 4 Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa, O’hare, and Vanderveen. Final Act. 32–33. Claim 33 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ichikawa, Ma, Vanderveen, and Wang. Final Act. 11–12. I. CLAIMS 1–17 AND 31–38 Independent claim 1, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter of the appealed claims: 1. A method comprising: via computer processor hardware operated in a wireless network environment including a first wireless access point and a second wireless access point, performing operations of: at the first wireless access point, receiving a notification indicating presence of the second wireless access point in the wireless network environment; validating the second wireless access point for receiving handoffs from the first wireless access point; forwarding neighbor information from a handoff manager resource to the first wireless access point, the handoff manager resource managing handoffs between the first wireless access point and the second wireless access point, the neighbor information indicating an identity of the second wireless access point, the neighbor information further indicating that the second wireless access point is a valid wireless access point in which to perform a handoff from the first wireless access point; communicating the neighbor information to a mobile communication device; and in response to receiving selection of the second wireless access point by the mobile communication device, initiating the handoff of the mobile communication device from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point. Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 5 Determinations and Contentions The Examiner finds that Ichikawa discloses a method that performs most of the steps of independent claim 1. Final Act. 7–9 (citing inter alia Ichikawa Abstr., ¶ 3). Of particular relevance to the present appeal, the Examiner finds that Ichikawa discloses forwarding neighbor information from a handoff manager resource to the first wireless access point (id. at 8 (citing Ichikawa ¶ 68)), but does not disclose further communicating the neighbor information to a mobile communication device. Id. at 9. The Examiner finds that Ma discloses communicating neighbor information to a mobile communication device for the purpose of carrying out a wireless handoff. Id. at 9–10. The Examiner determines that Ma provides motivation to modify Ichikawa’s method so as to communicate the neighbor information to the mobile communication device. Id. at 10. Appellant argues, inter alia, that in Ichikawa, the base station controller—not the mobile communication device—selects the second wireless access point in which to perform the handoff and forwards notification of the handoff channel to the mobile communication device. Appeal Br. 21. Appellant contends that there is no need for the wireless access point in Ichikawa to forward neighbor information of validated wireless access points because the controller in Ichikawa selects the new wireless access point to which to handoff the mobile communication device. Id. at 21–22. Analysis We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not reasonably explained why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to forward neighbor information to a nearby mobile device. Ichikawa describes Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 6 a base station controller that (1) selects the new wireless access point to which the mobile device should be handed off, and (2) instructs the mobile device to handoff by sending the mobile device acquired traffic channel identification information. Ichikawa ¶ 68. Restated, the cited portion of Ichikawa discloses sending channel information to the mobile device to let the mobile device know what channel to use for communicating with a neighboring access point. But the Examiner acknowledges in the Final Action that Ichikawa does not send “neighbor information”—information about the neighboring access point, itself—to the mobile device. Final Act. 9. And in light of the fact that Ichikawa’s process entails the base station controller selecting the appropriate neighboring base station for the handoff (e.g., Ichikawa ¶ 68), the Examiner has not explained sufficiently why one of ordinary skill in the art would have wanted to modify Ichikawa’s process so as to send “neighbor information,” as claimed, to the mobile device. Subsequent to the Final Action, the Examiner attempts to modify the rationale of the rejection. More specifically, the Examiner changes position from initially finding that Ichikawa does not disclose communicating the neighbor information to a mobile communication device, as claimed, to subsequently alternatively finding that Ichikawa does disclose communicating the neighboring information to a mobile communication device. Compare Final Act. 9 (“Ichikawa does not explicitly disclose communicating the neighbor information to a mobile communication device”), with Advisory Action, 2, mailed April 4, 2019 (“Adv. Act.”) (“After successfully acquiring the traffic channel, the base station controller instructs the wireless terminal to add the communication path that uses the Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 7 traffic channel). Therefore, the forwarding / disseminating [of the] neighbor information is needed in Ichikawa.”)4; see also Examiner’s Answer, 5, mailed July 19, 2019 (“Ans.”) (“Ichikawa teaches: the base station 200-1 [first access point] forwards neighbor information [traffic channel addition setting instruction] to the communication device [terminal 100]”) (citing Ichikawa ¶ 68; Fig. 11). The Examiner’s change in position does not overcome the deficiencies noted above in relation to the original rejection, as set forth in the Final Action. First, the Examiner explains that the claim term “neighbor information” is newly being interpreted more broadly to read on Ichikawa’s disclosure of communicating the channel information to the mobile. Adv. Act. 2; Ans. 5. But the Examiner does not set forth sufficient evidence or a technical basis to demonstrate that this broader interpretation is reasonable. Moreover, if we assume arguendo that Ichikawa does disclose communicating neighbor information to the mobile device, as claimed, then it is not clear what claim limitations still are not taught by Ichikawa or why the Examiner continues to rely on Ma in rejecting the claims as obvious. [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.” 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.” 4 We treat the cover sheet of the Advisory Action as constituting page 1 of the unnumbered document, with subsequent pages numbered sequentially. Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 8 In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) (alterations in original). For these reasons, Appellant’s arguments persuade us that the Examiner committed reversible error in rejecting independent claim 1. We, therefore, reverse the obviousness rejection of this claim and also of claims 13 and 14, which similarly recite that a mobile communication device receives from the first wireless access point, neighbor information that was generated by a handoff manager resource. With respect to the remaining obviousness rejections of claims 2–12, 15–17, and 31–38, the Examiner does not rely on the additionally cited art to cure the deficiencies noted above in relation to the combination of Ichikawa and Ma. Final Act. 11–24. Accordingly, we reverse the obviousness rejections of these claims for the reasons set forth above in relation to independent claim 1. II. CLAIMS 18, 19, 25–27, AND 30 Independent claim 18 is broader in scope than claim 1 and reads, as follows: 18. A system comprising: a first wireless access point; a second wireless access point; computer processor hardware; and a hardware storage resource coupled to communicate with the computer processor hardware, the hardware storage resource storing instructions that, when executed by the computer processor hardware, cause the computer processor hardware to: receive a notification indicating presence of the second wireless access point in the wireless network environment; Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 9 validate the second wireless access point for receiving handoffs from the first wireless access point; and produce neighbor information to include an identity of the second wireless access point, the neighbor information received by the first wireless access point, the neighbor information indicating that the second wireless access point is a valid wireless access point in which to perform a handoff from the first wireless access point. As noted above, the Examiner rejects claims 18 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 as being anticipated by Ichikawa. Final Act. 4–6. Appellant does not appeal this anticipation rejection. See generally Appeal Br. Nor does Appellant argue the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 19 and 25–27. See id. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the anticipation rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 of claims 18 and 30. We, likewise, summarily affirm the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 19 and 25–27. III. CLAIMS 28 AND 29 Claim 28 depends from claim 18 and reads as follows: 28. The computer system as in claim 18, wherein the first wireless access point resides in a first service provider’s wireless network and the second wireless access point resides in a second service provider’s wireless network, the first service provider and the second service provider partnering to provide shared used of content delivery services to a mobile communication device in communication with the first wireless access point via a corresponding communication session; and wherein authentication of the second wireless access point includes: in response to detecting that the second wireless access point resides outside of the first service provider’s wireless network, communicate with an authentication resource operated by the second service provider to verify that the second wireless Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 10 access point is a valid wireless access point from to handoff the corresponding communication session from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point. Determinations and Contentions The Examiner finds that Ichikawa discloses all of the limitations of independent claim 18 and that O’hare teaches the additional limitations recited in dependent claim 28. Final Act. 4–6, 31–32. That is, the Examiner finds that O’hare discloses the authentication of the second wireless access point includes the following step: in response to detecting that the second wireless access point resides outside of the first service provider’s wireless network, communicating with an authentication resource operated by the second service provider to verify that the second wireless access point is a valid wireless access point from which to handoff the corresponding communication session from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point. Final Act. 31–32 (citing O’hare ¶¶ 79, 92). More specifically, the Examiner finds that O’hare authenticates access points outside of its service network and evaluates potential handoffs to a non-native network (e.g., another service provider). Advisory Act. 4–5 (citing O’hare ¶¶ 31, 79, 88, 92); Ans. 16–17 (citing O’hare ¶¶ 31, 43, 88). Appellant does not argue claim 28 separately, but does argue that claim 28 is allowable for the same reasons that claim 11 is allowable. Appeal Br. 51. With regards to claim 11, and accordingly, claim 28, Appellant argues, there is no indication that the satellite network in the cited prior art belongs to a second service provider, especially not in which the first wireless access point communicates with an authentication resource operated by the second service provider to verify that the second wireless access point is a valid wireless Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 11 access point from which to handoff the corresponding communication session from the first wireless access point to the second wireless access point in response to detecting that the second wireless access point resides outside of the first service provider’s wireless network. Appeal Br. 50. Appellant subsequently admits that O’hare does handoff to other service provider networks, but that there is no authentication of the non- native network in O’hare. Reply Br. 33. Analysis We agree with the Examiner that O’hare teaches the authentication protocol, as recited in dependent claim 28. The portions of O’hare cited by the Examiner disclose authenticating the content access points from providers before being reached by the mobile device. For example, O’hare describes different service providers along the route utilizing a data negotiation layer protocol for streaming content to the mobile vehicle in an intersystem data distribution model. O’hare ¶ 75. O’hare also explains that the mobile computing device “might not need to authenticate each planned content access point.” O’hare ¶ 79 (emphasis added). As such, we understand these passages to reasonably teach, or at least suggest, that an authentication step, as recited in claim 28, is optional. Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us of reversible error with regard to the rejection of claim 28. We, therefore, affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 28 and also of claim 29, which Appellant does not argued separately. Appeal Br. 51. Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 12 DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 13, 14 103 Ichikawa, Ma 1, 13, 14 2 103 Ichikawa, Ma, Wang 2 3, 4, 16 103 Ichikawa, Ma, Friday 3, 4, 16 5, 8–10, 15, 32, 34–36 103 Ichikawa, Ma, Vanderveen 5, 8–10, 15, 32, 34–36 33 103 Ichikawa, Ma, Vanderveen, Wang 33 6, 7, 17, 31, 37, 38 103 Ichikawa, Ma, Vanderveen, Haberman 6, 7, 17, 31, 37, 38 11 103 Ichikawa, Ma, O’hare 11 12 103 Ichikawa, Ma, O’hare, Vanderveen 12 18, 30 102 Ichikawa 18, 30 19 103 Ichikawa, Wang 19 25–27 103 Ichikawa, Vanderveen 25–27 28 103 Ichikawa, O’hare 28 29 103 Ichikawa, O’hare, Vanderveen 29 Overall Outcome 18, 19, 25– 30 1–17, 31– 38 Appeal 2019-006829 Application 14/971,382 13 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)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED IN PART