Ex Parte HerleDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 28, 201410284578 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte SUDHINDRA P. HERLE ____________________ Appeal 2012-001850 Application 10/284,578 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. PER CURIAM DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM.2 1 The Real Party in Interest is Samsung Electronics Co., LTD. Appeal 2012-001850 Application 10/284,578 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s Invention Appellant’s invention relates to an apparatus and method for providing quality of service (QoS) management in a wireless mobile station, such as a mobile phone. Spec 1:6-8. According to Appellant, a quality of service (QoS) controller is scheduled to provide a radio link from the wireless mobile station to the wireless network. The radio link has a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters that support transmission and reception of data packets in a protocol that requires the set of quality of service (QoS) parameters. Id. at 4:6-13, and Abstract. Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 10, and 17 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is illustrative of Appellant’s invention and is reproduced with disputed limitations emphasized below: 1. For use in a wireless network capable of communicating with wireless mobile stations located in a coverage area of the wireless network, an apparatus for providing quality of service (QoS) management within a wireless mobile station, said apparatus comprising: a quality of service (QoS) controller implemented within said wireless mobile station, said quality of service (QoS) controller configured to: identify a protocol in use by data packets based upon protocol identifier data comprised within the data packets; determine, based upon the protocol, if the data packets require a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters; 2 Our decision refers to Appellant’s Appeal Brief filed April 15, 2011 (“App. Br.”); Reply Brief filed September 12, 2011 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed July 12, 2011 (“Ans.”); and original Specification filed October 31, 2002 (“Spec.”). Appeal 2012-001850 Application 10/284,578 3 provide a radio link from said wireless mobile station to said wireless network, said radio link having the set of quality of service (QoS) parameters that support transmission and reception of the data packets in the protocol that requires said set of quality of service (QoS) parameters; and terminate the radio link from said wireless mobile station to said wireless network. Evidence Considered Phillips US 6,400,712 B1 June 4, 2002 Li et al., US 6,654,363 B1 November 25, 2003 Spaling et al., US 6,985,739 B2 January 10, 2006 Examiner’s Rejections (1) Claims 1-9 and 17-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li and Spaling. Ans. 5-9. (2) Claims 10-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li, Spaling, and Phillips. Ans. 9-13. Issue on Appeal Based on Appellant’s arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is whether the Examiner erred in rejecting: (1) claims 1-9 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li and Spaling; and (2) claims 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li, Spaling, and Phillips. In particular, the appeal turns on whether Li teaches a “QoS controller configured to … determine, based upon the protocol, if the data packets require a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters,” as recited in Appellant’s independent claims 1 and 17, and similarly recited in independent claim 10. App. Br. 13-21; Reply Br. 2-4. Appeal 2012-001850 Application 10/284,578 4 ANALYSIS With respect to independent claims 1 and 17, the Examiner finds Li discloses a similar system and method comprising a quality of service (QoS) controller implemented within a wireless mobile station, and configured to perform all the recited functions, except for terminating a radio link from the wireless mobile station to the wireless network. Ans. 5-6 (citing Li, col. 4, ll. 1-15; col. 7, ll. 52-66; col. 8, ll. 19-22; FIG. 1). While such a termination feature is inherent in every communication between a wireless mobile station (i.e., mobile phone) and a base station in every wireless network, the Examiner nevertheless cites Spaling for an explicit disclosure of Appellant’s missing feature of terminating a radio link from a wireless mobile station to a wireless network. Id. at 6 (citing Spaling, col. 2, ll. 43-67). Based on these factual findings, the Examiner concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious … to include the feature of terminating the radio link from said wireless mobile station to said wireless network as shown in Spaling et al. in order to make use of network resource more efficient.” Id. Appellant does not dispute the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Spaling. Nor does Appellant argue against the Examiner’s rationale for combining Li and Spaling. Instead, Appellant disputes the Examiner’s factual findings regarding Li. In particular, the Examiner acknowledges Li discloses an IP QoS management on an IP service delivered over a wireless link and the quality of service (QoS) requirements are stored in a TOS/DS3 3 TOS stands for Type of Services, and DS stands for Differentiated Services used to identify the approach to qualify of service (QoS) as per Internet Protocol (IP) service. See Li, col. 5, ll. 25-27. Appeal 2012-001850 Application 10/284,578 5 field in an IP header of each IP packet along with a specific type of protocol used by the IP packet. App. Br. 16 (citing Li, col. 7, ll. 53-55 and 57-67). Nevertheless, the Examiner contends Li does not teach a “QoS controller configured to … determine, based upon the protocol, if the data packets require a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters,” as recited in independent claims 1 and 17. Id. at 17 (emphasis in the original). In support of this contention, Appellant asserts that an IP header of each data packet as disclosed by Li contains both: (1) the protocol and (2) the QoS requirements and, because of that disclosure, Li does not contemplate using the protocol to determine the QoS parameters since the QoS requirements are already included. Id. at 16. In addition, Because the SRID includes the protocol field indicating the protocol used by the IP packet and the TOS/DS field indicating the QoS requirements of the IP packet, the QoS requirements of the IP packet may be set independently of the protocol used by the IP packet. Thus, the SRID of Li cannot be construed to teach determining, based upon the protocol, if the data packets require a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters. Id. Consequently, according to Appellant, “Li contains no teaching or suggestion that the protocol is used to determine QoS requirements, and Li does not teach or suggest using the protocol to determine if the data packets require that a set of QoS parameters be used.” Id. at 17 (emphasis in the original). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s arguments. At the outset, we note that Appellant’s arguments are not commensurate with the scope of Appellant’s claims 1 and 17. Contrary to Appellant’s arguments, claims 1 and 17 do not require using the protocol to determine if the data packets require a set of QoS parameters; rather, claims 1 and 17 simply recite, inter Appeal 2012-001850 Application 10/284,578 6 alia, “identifying a protocol in use by data packets” and then “determining, based upon the [identified] protocol, if the data packets require a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters.” In other words, once the protocol type of the data packets is identified, the QoS controller determines if those data packets have any QoS requirement, as described by Appellant’s own Specification. See Spec. 20:6-18, and FIG. 3. Appellant’s FIG. 3 is reproduced below with additional markings for illustration. FIG. 3 shows an operation of a QoS controller. As shown in Appellant’s FIG. 3 and described in Appellant’s own Specification, the QoS controller implemented at a wireless mobile station (MS) is configured to identify a protocol type of the data packets and then determine if the outgoing data packets have any special QoS requirement. See Spec. 20:6-18, and FIG. 3, step 310. Even assuming arguendo that Appellant’s claims 1 and 17 require using the protocol to determine if the data packets require a set of QoS Appeal 2012-001850 Application 10/284,578 7 parameters, we agree with the Examiner that a service reference identification (SRID) as disclosed by Li can be reasonably viewed as a protocol since SRID is a function of (SA, DA, SP, DP, Protocol, and TOS/DS) where SA is an IP source address, DA is an IP destination address, SP is a TCP source port, DP is a TCP destination port, Protocol is the protocol used by the IP packet, and TOS/DS is the QoS parameters stored in the TOS/DS field. Ans. 14 (citing Li, col. 7, ll. 52-67). We also agree with the Examiner that the disputed term “determining, based upon the [identified] protocol, if the data packets require a set of quality of service (QoS) parameters” can be construed to encompass the QoS requirement parameters included the TOS/DC field in the IP header of each IP packet and used for the QoS management on an IP service delivered over a wireless link as disclosed by Li. Id. 14. Consequently, we adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings and conclusions forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer. Id. at 13-14. For the reasons set forth above, Appellant has not persuaded us of any error in the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1 and 17. Contrary, we find that the preponderance of the evidence supports the Examiner’s finding that the combined teachings of Li and Spaling would have suggested the subject matter of Appellant’s independent claims 1 and 17. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 17. With respect to independent claim 10, Appellant reiterates the same arguments presented against claims 1 and 17. App. Br. 19-20. For the same reasons discussed, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claim 10. Appeal 2012-001850 Application 10/284,578 8 With respect to dependent claims 2-9, 12-16, and 18-21, Appellant presents no separate patentability arguments. App. Br. 19 and 21. For the same reasons discussed, we also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 2-9, 12-16, and 18-21. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred in rejecting: (1) claims 1-9 and 17-21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li and Spaling; and (2) claims 10-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Li, Spaling, and Phillips. DECISION As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-21. 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 dm Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation