Ex Parte DAWSON et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 24, 201511842757 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 24, 2015) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ________________ Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. DAWSON, PETER G. FINN, RICK A. HAMILTON, II, and JENNY S. LI 1 ________________ Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 Technology Center 2600 ________________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOHN G. NEW, and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. NEW, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL 1 The Real Party-in-Interest is interest is International Business Machines Corporation of Armonk, New York. App. Br. 2. Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 2 SUMMARY Appellants file this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–28. 2 Specifically, claims 1–25 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Karaoguz et al. (US 2005/0233749 A1, October 20, 2005) (“Karaoguz”) and Tejaswini et al. (US 2005/0071476 A1, March 31, 2005) (“Tejaswini”). Claims 26–28 stand rejected as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over the combination of Karaoguz, Tejaswini, Saqunetti et al. (US 2004/0176905 A1, September 9, 2004) (“Saqunetti”), and Graves et al. (US 2005/0176420 A1, August 11, 2005). 3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 2 Although both the Examiner and Appellants indicate claim 19 is excluded from the list of claims rejected, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons as claim 6. Ans. 9; see also Final Act. 7. Because Appellants and Examiner both address the patentability of claim 19 (together with claims 13–18, 20, 21, 23, and 24) in their respective Appeal Brief and Answer, we address the patentability of claim 19 together with those claims. See App. Br. 15; Ans. 32. 3 The Examiner also rejected claim 25 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to nonstatutory subject matter. Final Act. 2–3. That rejection has since been withdrawn by the Examiner. Ans. 21. Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 3 NATURE OF THE CLAIMED INVENTION Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method of locating a wireless connection among a plurality of possible wireless connections. More particularly, Appellants claim a system and method of locating a user preferred wireless connection among a plurality of possible wireless connections. The method includes scanning for available networks and determining whether the available networks satisfy one or more user preferences. The method further includes establishing a secondary network connection with one of the available networks based on one or more user preferences being satisfied. Abstract. REPRESENTATIVE CLAIMS Because Appellants make the same arguments for claims 1–7 and 9– 12, we select independent claim 1 as representative. App. Br. 6. Claim 1 recites: 1. A method comprising scanning for available networks; determining whether any of the available networks satisfy one or more user defined preferences; and establishing a secondary network connection with one of the available networks based on the one or more user defined preferences being satisfied, the one or more user defined preferences comprising a most reliable network determined by using established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs. App. Br. 37. Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 4 Appellants argue dependent claim 26 separately. App. Br. 23. Claim 26 recites: 26. The method of claim 8, wherein: the history table includes unique identifiers of the available networks, actual connection types of the available networks, MAC or IP addresses of the available networks, and indications whether the available networks are encryption enabled or disabled; and the method further comprises: checking whether a name of a least expensive and reliable network from the history table appears in a list of the available networks found during the scanning; when the name of the least expensive and reliable network from the history table appears in the list, selecting the least expensive and reliable network from the history table; and when the name of the least expensive and reliable network from the history table does not appear in the list, checking whether a name of a next expensive and reliable network from the history table appears in the list. App. Br. 42. ISSUES AND ANALYSES A. Claim 1 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that Tejaswini teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 1 reciting “scanning for available Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 5 networks” and “a most reliable network determined by using established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs.” App. Br. 7. Analysis Appellants argue that Tejaswini teaches a mobile station disassociating with a first access point and associating with a second access point, if a link quality with the first access point goes below a “good threshold” due, e.g., to the mobile station moving away from the first access point. App. Br. 8 (citing Tejaswini ¶ 12). According to Appellants, Tejaswini also teaches historical association data that may include a ranking of access points based on average data throughput, duration of previous associations, a reason for disassociation, and number of previous associations. Id. However, Appellants argue, these criteria of Tejaswini do not amount to established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop- offs. Id. By way of example, Appellants contend that Tejaswini teaches that if an average data throughput for a previous association with an access point is high, but the duration of that association is short, a mobile station may decide not to associate with the access point. App. Br. 8. (citing Tejaswini ¶¶ 13, 24–26). By way of further example, Appellants submit that Tejaswini teaches that if the average duration for the previous association is moderate, but the duration of the last association is long, the mobile station may decide to associate with the access point. Id. However, Appellants dispute the Examiner’s finding that the historical association data thus taught by Tejaswini constitutes the “established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs” recited Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 6 by claim 1, because “short association duration indicates more drop[ped] call[s], [whereas] longer association duration indicates [fewer] or no drop[ped] call[s].” App. Br. 8 (quoting Final Act. 5). Appellants argue that the short durations of the previous associations could simply indicate short calls, whereas longer durations might simply indicate longer calls. It is Appellants’ position that the duration of the previous associations is unrelated to call drop-offs. Id. at 9. Similarly, Appellants argue that average data throughput may be high for many reasons (e.g., a large amount of transferred data) that are unrelated to no or few call drop-offs. Id. Appellants argue further that Tejaswini teaches that disassociation is based on a drop in link quality. App. Br. 10 (citing, e.g., Tejaswini ¶ 12). Appellants submit that the use of reasons for disassociation results in a determination that a user should not look to an access point. Id. By way of contrast, Appellants contend that their claimed invention looks to a most reliable network to connect thereto, by determining the good quality of the link, e.g., no or few drop-off calls. Id. In other words, Appellants characterize the teachings of Tejaswini as determining which networks not to connect to, whereas their invention determines which networks with which to connect. Id. The Examiner responds that, as an initial matter, the claim term “most reliable” would not allow one of ordinary skill in the art to distinctively contemplate clear and precise guidelines of what constitutes “reliable” and “most reliable.” Ans. 23. Furthermore, the Examiner finds, Appellants’ Specification uses the same terminology without substantially providing any such guidelines that define a degree of network reliability. Id. at 23–24. Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 7 The Examiner also finds that, even if what defines a “most reliable network” is “the established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs,” the Examiner finds that Tejaswini teaches a network access point selection procedure in which a variety of historical data parameters are considered, either individually, or in combination, depending on user preferences. Ans. 24 (citing Tejaswini ¶¶ 13, 14, 25). The Examiner finds that Tejaswini teaches that such parameters include “data rates, security, duration of last association, reason for [dis]association, number of previous associations, etc.” Id. The Examiner further finds that Tejaswini teaches that a collection of such past historical data is examined to select an access point that meets the user preferences. Id. (citing Tejaswini ¶ 25). The Examiner also points to the passage of Tejaswini reciting “[a]lso for example, if a previous association was short, and the disassociation was caused by the access point, the mobile station may decide not to associate with the access point.” Ans. 24. The Examiner finds that such a dropped call is typically a call that is terminated by the network side due to degradation of one or more various quality factors. Id. We agree with the Examiner. As an initial matter, we reject Appellants’ characterization of Tejaswini as choosing only which networks with which not to connect. See App. Br. 10. Tejaswini explicitly teaches “Any amount of association history data may be utilized in the decision whether or not to associate with an access point.” Tejaswini ¶ 25. Thus, Tejaswini teaches choosing to associate (or not) with an access point based upon the past association history. Tejaswini further teaches: Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 8 At 320, mobile station 102 accesses an average data throughput for past associations with access point 120, and at 330, mobile station 102 accesses duration data for past associations with access point 120. At 340, mobile station 102 accesses reasons for disassociation for past associations with access point 120, and at 350, mobile station 102 accesses a number of previous associations with access point 120. Tejaswini ¶ 23. Tejaswini thus teaches evaluating available networks based upon their historical (i.e., “established”), measurable (i.e., “empirical”) past interactions (i.e., “patterns”). Tejaswini also teaches that, when reviewing the association history of an access point: [I]f a previous association was short, and the disassociation was caused by the access point, the mobile station may decide not to associate with the access point. On the other hand, if a previous association was short, but the disassociation was caused by the mobile station, the mobile station may decide to associate with the access point or may decide to consider other data in support of the association decision. Tejaswini ¶ 25. We find that it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that an instance in which a short duration call was disassociated by the access point would be an instance of a call being “dropped off” by the access point, whereas a short duration call terminated by the mobile station may reflect another reason for disassociation (e.g., a dialed wrong number) and therefore may prompt a different decision as to whether to associate with the access point. We consequently find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would realize that the teachings of Tejaswini recited supra teach the limitation of claim 1 reciting “a most reliable network determined by using established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs.” Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 9 Appellants do not separately argue claims 2–7 and 9–12 (App. Br. 12– 13) and thus, for the same reasons as claim 1 discussed supra, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting dependent claims 2–7 and 9–12. Appellants present essentially the same arguments regarding the rejection of claims 13–21 and 23–24 (App. Br. 15–18) and thus, for essentially the same reasons discussed supra, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 13–21 and 23–24. B. Claims 8, 22, and 25 Appellants argue claims 8, 22, and 25 separately. However, Appellants’ arguments with respect to each of the claims are essentially the same as those presented for claim 1, viz., the duration of the previous associations do not indicate the existence of any network call drop-offs during the previous associations and the Examiner therefore failed to demonstrate that the combined cited prior art teaches or suggests the limitation reciting “a most reliable network determined by using established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs.” App. Br. 13–15, 18– 20, and 20–23. We have related supra why we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments in this respect, and we consequently affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 8, 22, and 25. C. Claim 26–28 Issue Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Karaoguz, Tejaswini, and Saqunetti teaches or suggests the limitation of claim 26 reciting “checking whether a name of a least Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 10 expensive and reliable network from the history table appears in a list of the available networks found during the scanning.” App. Br. 24. Analysis Appellants argue claims 26–28 separately. Appellants contend that the Examiner’s findings were incomplete, in that the Examiner cited Saqunetti as teaching only “the concept of checking for least expensive among the available and select the said least expensive network.” App. Br. 24 (citing Final Act. 24). Appellants argue that the Examiner did not find that Saqunetti disclosed the claim term “and reliable” from the disputed limitation. Id. Claim 26 depends from claim 1 and therefore incorporates all of the limitations of claim 1. We have related supra why we find that Tejaswini teaches the limitation of claim 1 reciting the determination of “a most reliable network determined by using established, empirical patterns indicating no or few call drop-offs.” Having established the reliability of an access point based upon past association history of, inter alia, “drop-offs,” we agree with the Examiner that it would be obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to combine that teaching with that of Karaoguz, which teaches determining and displaying “cost of use” when contacting local network access points. See Ans. 16 (citing Karaoguz ¶ 71). We therefore find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of and Tejaswini and Karaoguz to arrive at the limitation reciting “checking whether a name of a least expensive and reliable network from the history table appears in a list of the available networks found during the scanning.” Appeal 2012-003701 Application 11/842,757 11 With respect to claim 27, which depends from independent claim 25, Appellants make arguments similar to those employed in contesting the Examiner’s rejection of claim 26. App. Br. 28–29. Those arguments are similarly not persuasive with respect to claim 27. Therefore, for the reasons related supra, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 27. With respect to claim 28, which depends from claim 25, Appellants repeat their arguments made with respect to both claim 1 and claim 26. App. Br. 30–35. We have related supra why we do not find these arguments persuasive, and for those reasons, we similarly affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28. DECISION The Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–28 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). AFFIRMED sl Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation