Comcast Cable Communications, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 22, 2022

2021000230 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2022)

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. 15/906,509 02/27/2018 Ivan Ong 007412.03937\US 9814 71867 7590 02/22/2022 BANNER & WITCOFF , LTD ATTORNEYS FOR CLIENT NUMBER 007412 1100 13th STREET, N.W. SUITE 1200 WASHINGTON, DC 20005-4051 EXAMINER BEYEN, ZEWDU A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2022 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): PTO-71867@bannerwitcoff.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte IVAN ONG, DAVID URBAN, and CLIFTON LOWERY Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges. LEBOVITZ, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious. Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject the claims. 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 Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE There are three independent claims on appeal, claims 1, 8, and 15. Claim 1 is illustrative and copied below (bracketed numbers are added for reference to the claim limitations): 1. A method comprising: [1] causing transmission, to a node, of a query for data associated with a plurality of devices connected to a wireless network provided by a wireless access point of the node; [2] determining, based on a response to the query, an error at the node; and [3] sending, to a mobile device connected to the node via a communication session established over a short-range communication interface of the node, an instruction configured to cause the node to adjust a parameter associated with the wireless network. REJECTION The Examiner rejected claims 1-20 in the Final Office Action under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious in view of Roundtree et al. (US 2005/0233733 A1, published Oct. 20, 2005) (“Roundtree”) and Shen et al. (US 2012/0278654 A1, published Nov. 1, 2021) (“Shen”). Final Act. 3. ANALYSIS Step [1] of claim 1 is causing transmission of a “query for data associated with a plurality of devices connected to a wireless network” to a “node.” The connection to the network is provided by a wireless access point of the node. The claim does not specify what causes the transmission. In the second step [2] of the claim, based on the response to the data query of step [1], an error at the node is determined. Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 3 Step [3] of the claim, sends “an instruction configured to cause the node to adjust a parameter associated with the wireless network” to a mobile device connected to the node by short-range communication. The claim does not recite what causes the instruction to be sent. The Examiner found that Roundtree describes step [1] of claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Roundtree ¶ 121). The Examiner found that Roundtree does not explicitly describe step [2] in which an error at the node is determined, but found that Shen teaches making such determination and transmitting a reboot/reset command to the node. Final Act. 3-4 (citing Shen, ¶¶ 29, 40); Ans. 7-9 (citing Shen, ¶¶ 19, 29, 33, 36, 39, 41). The Examiner found that the reboot/reset command described in Shen meets the claim limitation in step [3] of “configured to cause the node to adjust a parameter associated with the wireless network.” Final Act. 4. The Examiner determined it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Shen with Roundtree for the benefit of reliably delivering instructions or commands to a device. Id. Step [1] of claim 1 The Examiner referenced Figure 22 of Roundtree as showing the claimed node and plurality of devices recited in step [1] of the claim. Figure 22 of Roundtree is reproduced below (annotated with “short-wave communication” to indicate the meaning of the arrow symbol): Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 4 Figure 22, reproduced above, shows a mobile device 100 connected to a plurality of remote devices 2202, 2204, 2206. Roundtree discloses that the remote devices can be “consumer appliances such as refrigerators, dishwashers, washers/dryers, ovens, and so forth.” Roundtree ¶ 119. Each of the remote devices 2202, 2204 comprises a wireless receiver 2208 “that communicates with the mobile device 100, such as via a Bluetooth link, IEEE 802.11, or other short-range wireless link.” Id. ¶ 121. The “subscriber” operates the mobile device. Id. Roundtree further discloses regarding the mobile device 100: Thus, the mobile device may be a central communicator within a subscriber’s home or other location, where the mobile device receives alerts from the remote devices, provides instructions or steps to the subscriber, allows the subscriber to query a status of remote devices, allows the subscriber to send commands to or operate the remote devices, and so forth. Roundtree ¶ 121. The Examiner found that the “node” of claim 1 is the mobile device 100 and the “plurality of devices” are remote devices 2202 and 2204. Final Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 5 Act. 3. The Examiner explained in the Answer that the “subscriber” described in paragraph 121 of Roundtree is “causing transmission” to the mobile device (the “node” of claim 1) of “a query for data associated with a plurality of devices connected to a wireless network provided by a wireless access point of the node” as in step [1] of claim 1. Ans. 4-5. Appellant contends that the cited references do not “teach or suggest” step [1] of claim 1 of “causing transmission, to a node, of a query for data associated with a plurality of devices connected to a wireless network provided by a wireless access point of the node.” Appeal Br. 5. Appellant contends that the mobile device 100 described in Roundtree does not correspond to the claimed node. Id. at 6-7. Appellant also argues that “a status query by/from the mobile device 100 to one or more of the remote devices 2202, 2204, or 2206, is not a transmission to the mobile device 100 (the supposed node) of a query for data associated with the remote devices 2202, 2204, and 2206.” Id. at 7. Appellant explains that “causing transmission from that mobile device is simply not the same as causing transmission to that mobile device.” Reply Br. 3. Compare step [1] of claim 1 of “causing transmission, to a node, of a query for data associated with a plurality of devices connected to a wireless network provided by a wireless access point of the node.” Appellant further argues that “the Answer implies at page 4 that Roundtree teaches a query from the mobile device to the remote devices is somehow first sent to the mobile device.” Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded by these arguments that the Examiner erred in the findings. The Examiner explained that the subscriber sends the query to the mobile device 100 (Ans. 4-5), but Appellant did not identify a Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 6 deficiency in this finding. Appellant quotes the passage in Roundtree relied upon by the Examiner, which includes the statement “the mobile device . . . allows the subscriber to query a status of remote devices” (Roundtree ¶ 121, reproduced above). Reply Br. 3. Appellant asserts that the disclosure “simply does not support what the Answer implies.” But Appellant does not explain what is wrong with the Examiner’s analysis. Reply Br. 3. Because step [1] of claim 1 does not identify what is “causing transmission” of the query to the node, the Examiner gave the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation that the “subscriber” is transmitting the query to the mobile device and node of the claim. Final Act. 4. During prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Appellant also argues that the mobile device 100 of Roundtree is not the claimed “node.” Final Act. 7. However, as discussed by the Examiner, the claim does not recite a feature in the claim that would distinguish the claimed “node” from the mobile device 100 of Roundtree. Ans. 5. Appellant did not, in response, identify a defect in the Examiner’s finding. Reply Br. 2. In concluding that the Examiner’s finding is supported by a totality of the preponderance before us, we note that the mobile device, itself, is not literally the node but comprises the function of providing “a wireless access point” that enables communication with the plurality of remote devices 2202, 2204 and determines an error based on the response to the query (where “at the node” in step [2] of claim 1 means the node determines an error received from the plurality of device). Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 7 The mobile device 100 also connects the devices to the wireless network, as recited in step [1] of the claim, because the remote devices 2202, 2204 are connected to the mobile device by short-range communication and the mobile device is connected to the network 206 (see Fig. 22 showing the mobile device connected wirelessly to network 206). Step [3] of claim 1 Appellant argues that Shen does not describe step [3] of claim 1 of “sending, to a mobile device connected to the node via a communication session established over a short-range communication interface of the node, an instruction configured to cause the node to adjust a parameter associated with the wireless network.” Appeal Br. 9. Appellant contends that the reboot instruction described by Shen is not “an instruction configured to cause the node to adjust a parameter associated with the wireless network.” Id. Appellant also argues that the mobile device sends the reboot instruction “from” a mobile, not sending the reboot instruction “to a mobile device” as recited in step [3] of the claim. Appeal Br. 9; Reply Br. 5. Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in the findings. Shen discloses that a mobile device comprises a management application which “may reset cable modem 150, adjust settings and parameters of cable modem 150, control cable modem 150 communication with an access point, and perform other functions.” Shen, ¶¶ 19, 20. The mobile device can “provide the reset command to an access point via mobile device 110.” Id. ¶ 29. Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 8 First, because the claim does not specify how the “sending” is accomplished, as for step [1], an administrator can enter an instruction into the cell phone which causes the node of the cell phone “to adjust a parameter associated with the wireless network” as recited in the claim. This is disclosed by Shen at paragraph ¶ 29 (“[A]n administrator may be within the wireless environment 190 to provide the reset command to an access point via mobile device 110. In this scenario, mobile device 110 may be brought within range of an access point . . . . The operation status of the cable modem may be supplied by the access point to the mobile device, which can either wait for user’s input to trigger a reset.”) (Emphasis added). Second, Shen more generally discloses that “[a] reboot command may be transmitted to the second device. The reboot command may be executable by the second device to cause the second device to initiate a reboot in the remote device.” Shen, ¶ 6. This disclosure also describes the claim limitation. To put it simply, step [3] requires that the instruction to adjust a parameter of the network is sent to a mobile device connected to the mode. Shen discloses that a reboot command may be transmitted to a second device, which initiates a reboot. Id. When the second device is the “mobile device,” Shen discloses sending a reboot command “to a mobile device” as required by step [3] of claim 1, and contrary to Appellant’s argument. We disagree with Appellant’s argument that the “reboot” instruction is not “configured to cause the node to adjust a parameter associated with the wireless network” as required by step [3] of the claim. Shen expressly discloses that the management application “may reset cable modem 150, adjust settings and parameters of cable modem 150.” Shen, Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 9 ¶¶ 19, 20. Appellant has not explained an error in the Examiner’s determination that a “reset” would result in resetting and adjusting the parameters of the wireless network. Reason to combine The Examiner explained that one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined Roundtree and Shen to remotely diagnose any problems with Roundtree’s plurality of devices and “find remedy if . . . a problem appears.” Ans. 10-11. Appellant argues that the Examiner “has not established that a POSA [person of ordinary skill in the art] would have combined a reference related to call interceptions for customer self-support (Roundtree) with a reference generally relating to remote cable access point reset (Shen).” Reply Br. 5. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive of Examiner error. Roundtree, as explained in its Abstract, discloses a “method for intercepting calls from a remote or mobile device for customer self-support detects when users or subscribers dial one or more predetermined numbers.” Roundtree, Abstract. Paragraph 121 of Roundtree, in discussing other details of Roundtree’s invention, describes a plurality of devices connected wirelessly to a mobile device. The wireless transceiver would require a reset and parameter adjustment if experiencing a problem as explained by the Examiner. Summary For the foregoing reasons, the rejection of claim 1 is affirmed. Dependent claims 2-7 fall with claim 1 (“Claims 2-7 ultimately depend from independent claim 1, and the rejections of those claims should be Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 10 reversed for at least the same reasons as claim 1, and further in view of the additional features recited therein); no arguments were provided for the “additional features.”). Appeal Br. 11. Claims 8-14 Appellant relies on the same unpersuasive arguments for claims 8-14 as for claim 1. Appeal Br. 11 (“For reasons similar to those set forth in Section VI.A in connection with claim 1, the rejection of claim 8 should be reversed”). Because we found the arguments for claim 1 deficient, the rejection of claims 8-14 is affirmed for the same reasons. Claims 15-20 Appellant relies on the same unpersuasive arguments for claims 15- 20 as for claim 1. Appeal Br. 12 (“For reasons similar to those set forth in Section VI.A in connection with claim 1, the rejection of claim 15 should be reversed”). Because we found the arguments for claim 1 deficient, the rejection of claims 15-20 is affirmed for the same reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1-20 103(a) Roundtree, Shen 1-20 Appeal 2021-000230 Application 15/906,509 11 TIME PERIOD 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