Ex Parte Kampmann et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 21, 2017

14239210 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 21, 2017)

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.
14/239,210 04/09/2014 Dirk Kampmann 1009-0861 / P34541 US1 8762
7590
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
LA, PHONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/23/2017 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DIRK KAMPMANN, SRINIVAS KADABA, and
ANDREAS WITZEL
Appeal 2017-005316
Application 14/239,210
Technology Center 2400
Before: ERIC B. CHEN, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and ADAM J. PYONIN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 15—28. Claims 1—14 have been cancelled. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention relates to a central control entity configured to
control a data plane flow of a stream of data packages in a radio access
network part of a mobile communications network. (Abstract.)
Appeal 2017-005316
Application 14/239,210
Claim 15 is exemplary, with disputed limitations in italics:
15. A central control entity configured to control a data plane
flow of a stream of data packages in a radio access network part of a
mobile communications network, the central control entity comprising
processing circuitry configured to:
detect information about data plane applications attached to
forwarding elements of the radio access network part and detect
information about at least one data plane application that is to be
applied to said data plane flow, wherein, based on using subscriber
data, the central control entity has knowledge of which data plane
application has to be applied to said data plane flow;
determine a path of the data plane flow through the forwarding
elements of the radio access network part, based on taking into
account said at least one data plane application to be applied to said
data plane flow; and
instruct the forwarding element in the path, to which said at
least one data plane application is attached, to pass the data plane flow
through said at least one data plane application.
Claims 15—23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 15, 16, 22—25, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Ueno (US 2012/0020361 Al; Jan. 26, 2012) and
Rashid (US 2011/0096732 Al; Apr. 28, 2011).
Claims 17 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Ueno, Rashid, and Xu (US 2002/0038339 Al; Mar. 28,
2002).
Claims 18—20 and 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
unpatentable over Ueno, Rashid, and Tuulos (US 2005/0122900 Al; June 9,
2005).
2
Appeal 2017-005316
Application 14/239,210
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) unpatentable over
Ueno, Rashid, and Moriya (US 2002/0027887 Al; Mar. 7, 2002).
ANALYSIS
§ 112, Second Paragraph, Rejection
We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 6—7) that
independent claim 15 complies with 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
The Examiner concluded that independent claim 15 is indefinite
because “[i]n view of the preamble, the claim belongs to a machine
category, yet the body of the claim recites process category.” (Final
Act. 12.) We do not agree.
In general, a claim that recites an apparatus and method steps of using
the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See IPXL
Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Independent claim 15 recites “[a] central control entity ... the central
control entity comprising processing circuitry configured to .. . detect. . .
determine . . . and instruct'' (emphases added). While the Examiner is
correct that the recitation of a “central control entity” in claim 15 is directed
to the statutory category of a machine, the limitations “configured to . . .
detect. . . determine . . . and instruct” are functional limitations, rather than
method steps (i.e., limitations describing steps or acts to be performed).
Thus, some of the features of claim 15 are recited by function, rather than
structurally. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1478, 44 USPQ2d 1429,
1432 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“A patent applicant is free to recite features of an
apparatus either structurally or functionally”).
3
Appeal 2017-005316
Application 14/239,210
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that
“[cjlaim 15 claims a central control entity comprising processing circuitry
that is configured to perform several explicitly recited functions” and “[n]o
process limitations appear anywhere within the claim, and the rejection
should be withdrawn on at least the following basis.” (App. Br. 6.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Claims 16—23 depend from
claim 15. Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 16—23 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, for the same reasons discussed with
respect to independent claim 15.
§103 Rejection—Ueno and Rashid
We are further persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (App. Br. 9-11)
that the Examiner improperly combined Ueno and Rashid.
The Examiner acknowledged that Ueno does not disclose the
limitation “radio access network part” and thus, relied on Figure 1 of Rashid,
which includes radio access network (RAN) controller 130 and IP access
gateway 140. (Final Act. 16.) The Examiner concluded that
[i]t would have been obvious ... to provide “a central control
entity configured to control a data plane flow of a stream of data
packages in “a radio access network part” of a mobile
communications network” as taught by Rashid in the system of
Ueno, so that it would to establish one or more radio link flows
between a mobile device and an IP access gateway, wherein each
radio link flow has a different QoS reservation.
{Id. (emphases omitted).) Appellants persuade us the Examiner’s
conclusions are in error.
4
Appeal 2017-005316
Application 14/239,210
Ueno “relates to a technique that controls a switch network system.”
(12.) Figure 1 of Ueno illustrates a block diagram of switch network
system 1, including switches 10, servers 20 and controller 100. (137.)
Figure 2 of Ueno illustrates a block diagram of switch 10 and controller 100
(140), such that controller 100 includes flow processing block 120 and flow
table setting block 150 (146). Figure 5 of Ueno illustrates a flow chart of
the switch processing, including Steps SI 1—SI6, such that “[w]hen receiving
the packet from the input port, the switch processing block 11 extracts the
header information of the received packet” and “uses the extracted header
information and the input port as a search key to searches the flow table
TBL for an entry that matches the received packet.” (| 53.)
Rashid relates to wireless communications, in particular “measuring
and reducing latency of radio link flows having different quality of service
(QoS) reservations.” (13.) In particular, Rashid explains that “[a]n example
method comprises establishing one or more radio link flows between a
mobile device and an IP access gateway, wherein each radio link flow has a
different QoS reservation.” (| 9.) Figure 1 of Rashid illustrates wireless
communication environment 100, including mobile devices 105, radio
access networks (RAN) 110, and IP network 150. (125.)
Although the Examiner proposes to modify Ueno with Rashid, the
Examiner has not provided an articulated reasoning with some rationale
underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would combine Ueno
with Rashid, such that the combination would result in a reasonable
expectation of success. In particular, even if the Examiner is correct the
Ueno teaches the functional limitations of claim 15 (i.e., “configured to:
detect. . . determine . . . and instruct”), Ueno relates to a switch network
5
Appeal 2017-005316
Application 14/239,210
system and the Examiner has neither sufficiently explained nor provided
evidence as to how the switch network system of Ueno would functionally
cooperate with radio access networks (RAN) 110 of Rashid.
Thus, we are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments that “the Office
Action . . . argues that it would have been obvious to modify Ueno to
operate in a RAN context... for establishing ‘radio flow links’ between a
mobile device and an IP access gateway” but “does not explain why one of
ordinary skill in the art would take the generalized IP switching network of
Ueno and repurpose it as a RAN-based network, and the rationale is
impermissible as being conclusory, rather than being based on articulated
reasoning with some rational underpinning.” (App. Br. 11.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Claim 16, 22, and 23 depends from independent
claim 15. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 16, 22, and 23 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent
claim 15.
Independent claim 24 recites limitations similar to those discussed
with respect to independent claim 15. We do not sustain the rejection of
claim 24, as well as dependent claims 25, and 28, for the same reasons
discussed with respect to claim 15.
§103 Rejection—Ueno, Rashid, and Xu
Claims 17 and 26 depend from independent claims 15 and 24. Xu
was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claims 17
6
Appeal 2017-005316
Application 14/239,210
and 26. (Final Act. 21—22.) However, the Examiner’s application of Xu
does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Ueno and Rashid.
§103 Rejection—Ueno, Rashid, and Tuulos
Claims 18—20 and 27 depend from independent claims 15 and 24.
Tuulos was cited by the Examiner for teaching the additional features of
claims 18—20 and 27. (Final Act. 22—26.) However, the Examiner’s
application of Tuulos does not cure the above noted deficiencies of Ueno
and Rashid.
§103 Rejection—Ueno, Rashid, and Moriya
Claim 21 depends from independent claim 15. Moriya was cited by
the Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 21. (Final
Act. 26—27.) However, the Examiner’s application of Moriya does not cure
the above noted deficiencies of Ueno and Rashid.
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15—23 under 35 U.S.C.
§112, second paragraph, is reversed.
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 15—28 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
REVERSED
7