Ex Parte Kakani

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 28, 2016

12531064 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/531,064 03/02/2010
10949 7590 08/01/2016
Nokia Corporation and Alston & Bird LLP
c/o Alston & Bird LLP
Bank of America Plaza, 101 South Tryon Street
Suite 4000
Charlotte, NC 28280-4000
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Naveen Kumar Kakani
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
042933/425529 6601
EXAMINER
BRYAN, JASON B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2114
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/01/2016 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):
usptomail@alston.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NA VEEN KUMAR KAKANI
Appeal2015-004112
Application 12/531,064
Technology Center 2100
Before KAL YANK. DESHPANDE, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JUSTIN T. ARBES, Administrative Patent Judges.
KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 1
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-17, 19--23, 25, and 27. 2 We have
jurisdiction over the appeal pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 Our Decision makes reference to Appellant's Appeal Brief ("App. Br.,"
filed January 17, 2014), the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.," mailed April 10,
2014), and the Final Office Action ("Final Act.," mailed May 15, 2013).
2 Claims 5, 18, 24, and 26 were canceled previously.
Appeal 2015-004112
Application 12/531,064
INVENTION
The invention is directed to the transmission and reception of data
within wireless networks. Spec. i-fi-1 4--5.
TT
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method comprising:
receiving, from a wireless recipient station, a request to
establish a reliable multicast/broadcast session with the recipient
station, the request including a field indicating a presence of
other fields in the request relating to reliable multicast/broadcast;
and
transmitting, to the recipient station, a response to the
request to establish the reliable multicast/broadcast session, the
response including one or more retransmission fields describing
a retransmission of data for the requested reliable
multicast/broadcast session.
REFERENCES
T Tr1 !""' ff Al f\r\ -1 n , I"\ "1AA,.., l\._een U~ J,OOLf.,U'J l ~ept. L, l 'J'J I
Cheng us 6,088,342 July 11, 2000
Gu US 2006/0034247 Al Feb. 16,20063
Kolakowski US 2007/0286121 Al Dec. 13, 20074
Ginzburg US 2008/0002621 Al Jan. 3, 2008 5
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1--4, 6-8, 10, 16, 20-23, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Cheng and Kolakowski.
Final Act. 3-10.
3 Application filed August 12, 2004.
4 Application filed June 12, 2006.
5 Application filed June 29, 2006.
2
Appeal 2015-004112
Application 12/531,064
Claims 9, 13, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Kolakowski, and Keen. Final
Act. 10-11.
Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Kolakowski, and Ginzburg.
Final Act. 12-13.
Claims 14, 15, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Kolakowski, and Gu. Final Act.
13-14.
Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over the combination of Chen, Kolakowski, Gu, and Keen. Final Act. 15-
16.
ISSUE
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Cheng and
Kolakowski teaches "a field indicating a presence of other fields in the
request relating to reliable multicast/broadcast," as recited in independent
claims 1 and 23?
ANALYSIS
Independent claims 1 and 23 recite "receiv[ing], from a wireless
recipient station, a request to establish a reliable multicast/broadcast session
with the recipient station." Independent claims 1 and 23 further recite that
the request includes "a field indicating a presence of other fields in the
request relating to reliable multicast/broadcast."
3
Appeal 2015-004112
Application 12/531,064
The Examiner finds that the combination of Cheng and Kolakowski
teaches these limitations. Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 2--4. Specifically, the
Examiner's finding is based upon the combination of Kolakowski' s teaching
of a multicast communication system with Cheng's teaching of a request
indicating the presence of other fields relating to Cheng's reliable
communication system. Ans. 3--4; Final Act. 2--4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner's finding is in error. App. Br. 4.
However, instead of arguing against the combination of the references, as
proposed by the Examiner, Appellant attacks each of the references
individually. Id. at 4---6. For instance, Appellant's argument that Cheng fails
to teach fields related to multicast or broadcast configurations (id. at 5) is
incorrect because the Examiner cites to Kolakowski for that teaching (Ans.
3). And Appellant's argument that Kolakowski fails to teach the presence of
other fields relating to reliable communications (App. Br. 5) is also incorrect
because the Examiner relies upon Cheng for that teaching (Ans. 3). As such,
we do not find Appellant's arguments persuasive because (1) Appellant does
not address the Examiner's specific finding regarding the combination of the
references; and (2) one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references.
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, for the reasons indicated above, we sustain the
Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1 and 23.
Appellant makes the same arguments with respect to claims 2--4, 6-
17, 19--22, 25, and 27 as with claims 1and23. App. Br. 6. We are not
persuaded by Appellant's arguments for the same reasons discussed above.
4
Appeal 2015-004112
Application 12/531,064
As such, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2--4, 6-17,
19--22, 25, and 27.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Chen and
Kolakowski teaches "a field indicating a presence of other fields in the
request relating to reliable multicast/broadcast," as recited in independent
claims 1 and 23.
SUMMARY
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 1--4, 6-8, 10, 16, 20-23, and
27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Cheng
and Kolakowski is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 9, 13, and 25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Kolakowski,
and Keen is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Kolakowski, and
Ginzburg is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision to reject claims 14, 15, and 17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Chen,
Kolakowski, and Gu is affirmed.
5
Appeal 2015-004112
Application 12/531,064
The Examiner's decision to reject claim 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over the combination of Chen, Kolakowski, Gu, and Keen is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.13 6( a )(1 )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6