Ex Parte Kotecha et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 8, 2016

12862447 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/862,447 08/24/2010
25537 7590 01/12/2016
VERIZON
PA TENT MANAGEMENT GROUP
1320 North Court House Road
9th Floor
ARLINGTON, VA 22201-2909
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Lalit R. Kotecha
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.
20100464 4025
EXAMINER
CHO, HONG SOL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01112/2016 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):
patents@verizon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LALIT R. KOTECHA, SERGIO AGUIRRE,
JIN YANG, and YEE SIN CHAN
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
Technology Center 2400
Before BARBARA A. BENOIT, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and JOYCE
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judges.
CRAIG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejections of
claims 1-25, which constitute all the claims pending in the application. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm the Examiner's rejections of the pending claims.
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention generally relates to a device that receives a
priority configuration for a subscriber associated with a user device and
monitors resource utilization information associated with an Internet
protocol (IP) wireless access network of the user device. Abstract.
Claims 1, 7, and 8 are illustrative and read as follows, with key
limitations emphasized:
1. A method implemented by a computing device, the
method comprising:
receiving, by the computing device, a priority
configuration for a subscriber associated with a user device,
wherein the subscriber priority configuration identifies a
priority of the subscriber for accessing an Internet protocol
(IP) wireless access network;
monitoring, by the computing device, resource utilization
information associated with the IP wireless access network of
the user device;
detecting; by the computing device; an initial attach
request of the user device to the IP wireless access network:
determining, by the computing device, whether to accept
or deny the initial attach request based on the subscriber
priority configuration and the resource utilization information;
providing, to the user device and when the initial attach
request is denied, a time for the user device to attempt a re-
attach to the IP wireless access network; and
permitting, by the computing device and when the initial
attach request is accepted, the user device to access the IP
wireless access network.
7. A method implemented by a computing device, the
method comprising:
receiving, by the computing device, a priority
configuration for a subscriber associated with a user device,
wherein the subscriber priority configuration identifies at least
one of subscriber service plan information, subscriber
2
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
hardware information, or a priority associated with the
subscriber for accessing an Internet protocol (IP) wireless
access network;
providing, by the computing device, the subscriber
priority configuration to a base station associated with the IP
wireless access network of the user device;
receiving, by the computing device and from the base
station, resource utilization information associated with the IP
wireless access network when the user device attempts an
initial attach to the IP wireless access network;
determining, by the computing device and based on the
subscriber priority configuration and the resource utilization
information, a time for the user device to attempt a re-attach to
the IP wireless access network when the user device is denied
access to the IP wireless access network; and
providing, by the computing device, the determined time
to the user device.
8. The method of claim 7, further comprising;
receiving a priority configuration for application services
associated with the user device;
. . , . . . f. l recezvzng an apptZcatzon sen;zce request 1rom trie user
device when the user device is provided access to the IP
wireless access network;
determining whether to accept or deny the application
service request based on the application services priority
configuration and the resource utilization information;
providing, to the user device and when the application
service request is denied, a time for the user device to re-
attempt the application service request; and
permitting, by the computing device and when the
application service request is accepted, the user device to
receive the requested application service via the IP wireless
access network.
3
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-8, 11-20, and 23-25 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kadaba et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,660,244 B2)
in view of Lee et al. (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2010/0014422 Al) and
Yamada et al. (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2012/0039171 Al). Final Act. 2-
7.
The Examiner rejects claims 9, 10, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Kadaba in view of Lee and Yamada and
further in view of Haner et al. (U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0212588
Al). Final Act. 4--7.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1---8 and 11-20 (35 USC§ 103(a))
In rejecting claims 1-8 and 11-20, the Examiner finds that Kadaba
teaches or suggests deciding whether to permit a request by a user device to
access an IP wireless access network. Final Act. 2 (citing Kadaba, col 5, 11.
7-20). The Examiner further finds that Kadaba teaches or suggests deciding
1 Each of claims 23-25 depends from claim 21, which is rejected under
§ 103 over Kadaba, Lee, Yamada, and Haner. Final Act. 4; App. Br. 34
(Claims Appendix). The Examiner, however, erroneously includes each of
claims 23-25 in the § 103 rejection over Kadaba, Lee, and Yamada. See
Final Act. 2-3. Appellants do not argue this error, and we deem it harmless
because the rejection of each of claims 23-25 relies on disclosures of
references included in the rejection of claim 21. See Final Act. 2-3 (relying
on Kadaba, Lee, and Yamada for the rejection of claims 24 and 25); id. at 3
(relying on Kadaba for the rejection of claim 23); id. (relying on Kadaba,
Lee, Yamada, and Haner for the rejection of claim 21 ). Based on the record
before us, we presume that the Examiner intended to reject each of
claims 23-25 as being unpatentable over Kadaba, Lee, Yamada, and Haner,
and we present the correct claim listing in our analysis for clarity.
4
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
whether to permit an application service request by a user device. Id. at 3
(citing Kadaba, col. 5, 11. 21-25). The Examiner acknowledges that Kadaba
does not expressly disclose whether to accept or deny a request based on the
subscriber priority configuration and the resource utilization information.
Id. at 2-3. Thus, the Examiner modifies the system of Kadaba with the
teachings of Lee to teach or suggest those features. Id. at 3; Ans. 3. The
Examiner also acknowledges that Kadaba does not expressly disclose
providing a time for the user device to attempt a re-attach if the request is
denied. Final Act. 2-3. The Examiner, therefore, modifies the system of
Kadaba and Lee with the teachings of Yamada to teach or suggest those
features. Id. The Examiner provides a reason an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have done so:
[I]t would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to modify
the system of Kadaba with the teachings of Lee and
Yamada for the benefit of providing efficient and reiiabie
data communication by controlling of data admission to
the network by considering network condition and user
requirement.
Final Act. 3.
On the record before us, we do not agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not carried the burden of establishing a prima facie case of
obviousness regarding the subject matter recited in claims 1-8 and 11-20
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Moreover, we are not persuaded
of error in the Examiner's findings with regard to what the combined
teachings of the prior art would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art at the time Appellants' invention was made.
5
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 15-19
With regard to illustrative claim 1, Applicants contend that the
Examiner errs because the Examiner "did not specifically address the feature
of receiving a priority configuration for a subscriber associated with a user
device, as recited in claim 1" and neither Kadaba nor Lee nor Yamada
discloses this feature. App. Br. 12-14. In particular, Appellants contend
that "Lee merely recites using priority as a basis for allowing information
flow (e.g., transmission) in a network" and "grant[s] an admission request,
from a station connected to the network, for transmitting information flow."
Id. at 13.
The Examiner finds that the combination of Kadaba and Lee teaches
or suggests "obtaining user priority information and the resource utilization
[information]" for "making an admission decision regarding admission of [a]
new user to the network." Ans. 3 (citing Kadaba, col. 5, 11. 7-12) (emphasis
in original); see also Final Act. 2--'3 (citing Kadaba, col. 5, 11. 7--'20; Lee, Fig.
4, steps 402 and 406). The Examiner further finds that "Lee discloses an
admission request message comprising a priority of a user associated with
the information flow." Ans. 5 (citing Lee, i-f 37).
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because they attack Lee
individually when the Examiner, in fact, relies on the combination of
Kadaba and Lee as teaching or suggesting the features. See Final Act. 2-3.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art
would have suggested to the hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (citing In re Keller, 642
F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)) ("[T]he test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those having
6
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
ordinary skill in the art."). Appellants acknowledge that Kadaba discloses "a
method for controlling network access of new users." App. Br. 12.
Moreover, Appellants acknowledge that in step 402 of Lee, the priority of
the information flow is obtained by the admission controller based on a
priority of a user associated with the information flow. Id. at 13 (citing Lee,
ii 59).
Weighing Appellants' arguments, which do not provide persuasive
evidence or support why the combination of Kadaba, Lee, and Yamada does
not teach or suggest "receiving, by the computing device, a priority
configuration for a subscriber associated with a user device, wherein the
subscriber priority configuration identifies a priority of the subscriber for
accessing an Internet protocol (IP) wireless access network," as claim 1
recites, against the Examiner's findings, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error.
AppeUants aiso contend that neither Kadaba nor Lee discloses
"determining, by the computing device, whether to accept or deny the initial
attach request based on the subscriber priority configuration and the resource
utilization information," as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14--16.
Appellants argue, as they did with regard to the "receiving" step of
claim 1, discussed above, that Lee grants admission requests from a station
already connected to the network for transmitting an information flow, and
that step 402 in Lee discloses only "priority information," not the
"subscriber priority configuration" recited in claim 1. App. Br. 14--15. As
explained above, we find no error in the Examiner's findings that the system
of Kadaba as modified by the teachings of Lee teaches or suggests a priority
configuration for a subscriber associated with a user device for a making an
7
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
admission decision regarding adding a new user to a network (see Final Act.
2-3; Ans. 3).
The Examiner further relies on step 406 in Fig. 4 of Lee for the
teaching or suggestion of resource utilization information. Final Act. 2-3;
Ans. 3. Appellants argue that step 406 discloses obtaining an overall
network load based on time fractions allocated to transmit information
flows, but Appellants offer no persuasive explanation or evidence to support
their view that an overall network load is not the claimed "resource
utilization information." App. Br. 14--15. Mere attorney argument-as
opposed to factual evidence-is entitled to little probative value. Cf In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (indicating attorney argument
is insufficient to establish unexpected results to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness).
Weighing the Examiner's findings against Appellants' arguments,
which do not provide persuasive evidence or support why the combination
of Kadaba, Lee, and Yamada does not teach or suggest "determining, by the
computing device, whether to accept or deny the initial attach request based
on the subscriber priority configuration and the resource utilization
information," as claim 1 recites, we are not persuaded of Examiner error.
Appellants also contend that Yamada does not disclose "providing, to
the user device and when the initial attach request is denied, a time for the
user device to attempt a re-attach to the IP wireless access network," as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 16. Appellants specifically argue that Yamada
does not disclose providing the IBO value "as a result of determining, by the
computing device, to deny the initial attach request based on the subscriber
priority configuration and the resource utilization information." Id.
8
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
Appellants further argue that Yamada does not disclose "providing a time
for the user device to attempt to re-attach to the IP wireless access network,"
as recited in claim 1 and in similar limitations in claims 9-19. Id.
Appellants' arguments ignore that the Examiner combines Yamada
with Kadaba and Lee. See Mouttet, 686 F.3d at 1333. As discussed above,
the Examiner modifies the system of Kadaba with the teachings of Lee in
finding that the combination teaches or suggests "determining, by the
computing device, whether to accept or deny the initial attach request based
on the subscriber priority configuration and the resource utilization
information," as recited in claim 1 (see Final Act. 2-3). Moreover,
Appellants acknowledge that paragraph 69 of Yamada teaches the use of
initial back off (IBO) information to prevent an overload condition on a
network, and that the IBO information may include an IBO value, which can
be associated with an access delay. App. Br. 16.
Weighing Appeiiants' arguments against the Examiner's findings that
Yamada, when read in light of the teachings of Kadaba and Lee, teaches or
suggests providing a time for the user device to attempt a re-attach to the IP
wireless access network (Final Act. 3), we are not persuaded that the
Examiner erred in finding that the combination teaches or suggests
"providing, to the user device and when the initial attach request is denied, a
time for the user device to attempt a re-attach to the IP wireless access
network," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We
also sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 4, which depend from
claim 1 and for which Appellants present no separate arguments. We also
sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 15, which contains
9
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
limitations similar to those recited in claim 1 and for which Appellants do
not make separate arguments. App. Br. 22-23. We also sustain the
obviousness rejection of claims 16-19, which depend from claim 15 and for
which Appellants present no separate arguments.
Claims 2, 5, and 6
The Examiner rejects claims 2, 5, and 6 for the same reasons as claim
1. Final Act. 2-7. Appellants make arguments specific to claims 2, 5, and 6,
each of which depends from claim 1. App. Br. 16-18.
Regarding claim 2, Appellants contend that the Examiner errs by not
specifically addressing the limitation reciting "reporting the resource
utilization information to at least one other device of the IP wireless access
network when the initial attach request is detected," and that this limitation
is not taught or suggested in the combination of Kadaba, Lee, and Yamada.
App. Br. 16-17. In response, the Examiner explains that Lee discloses a
channel monitor receiving a station feedback message comprising a current
channel data rate of the communication channel. Ans. 4 (citing Lee, Fig. 1,
element 120, i-f 35).
With regard to claim 5, Appellants contend that the Examiner errs in
not specifically addressing the limitation reciting "the subscriber priority
configuration includes one or more of: subscriber plan information,
subscriber hardware information, or a priority, associated with the
subscriber, for accessing the IP wireless access network," and that this
limitation is not taught or suggested in the combination of Kadaba, Lee, and
Yamada. App. Br. 17. In response the Examiner explains that Lee
10
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
"discloses an admission request message comprising a priority of a user
associated with the information flow." Ans. 4 (citing Lee, i-f 37).
Regarding claim 6, Appellants contend that the Examiner errs in
finding that Kadaba, Lee, and Yamada teaches or suggests the limitation
reciting "the resource utilization information includes one or more of: radio
utilization of the computing device by one or more other user devices
associated with the IP wireless access network, or a load placed on the
computing device by the one or more other user devices." App. Br. 18. In
response, the Examiner explains that "Kadaba discloses considering RF-
related input (radio utilization) in determining admission of a new user into a
network." Ans. 4 (citing Kadaba, col. 6, 11. 60-64).
Because Appellants offer no persuasive argument or evidence to rebut
the Examiner's findings, and for the reasons discussed above with respect to
claim 1, we are not persuaded of error regarding claims 2, 5, and 6.
Accordingiy, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 5, and 6.
Claims 7 and 11-14
With regard to independent claim 7, Appellants contend that the
Examiner errs in finding that the combination of Kadaba, Lee, and Yamada
teaches or suggests "receiving, by the computing device, a priority
configuration for a subscriber associated with a user device, wherein the
subscriber priority configuration identifies at least one of: subscriber service
plan information, subscriber hardware information, or a priority associated
with the subscriber for accessing an Internet protocol (IP) wireless access
network." App. Br. 19. Appellants refer to and rely on the arguments
presented for the similar limitation recited in claim 1. Id. We do not find
11
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
Appellants' arguments regarding this claim limitation persuasive of error for
the reasons stated above in the context of claim 1.
Appellants further contend that neither Kadaba nor Lee discloses
"receiving, by the computing device and from the base station, resource
utilization information associated with the IP wireless access network when
the user device attempts an initial attach to the IP wireless access network,"
as recited in claim 7. App. Br. 20. In support of their contention, Appellants
refer to and rely on the arguments presented for the limitation in claim 1
reciting "determining, by the computing device, whether to accept or deny
the initial attach request based on the subscriber priority configuration and
the resource utilization information." Id. For the reasons discussed above in
the context of claim 1, we are not persuaded of Examiner error with regard
to this claim limitation.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner errs in finding that Yamada
discloses "determining, by the computing device and based on the subscriber
priority configuration and the resource utilization information, a time for the
user device to attempt a re-attach to the IP wireless access network when the
user device is denied access to the IP wireless access network," as recited in
claim 7. App. Br. 20-21. Appellants refer to and rely on the arguments
presented for the limitation in claim 1 reciting "providing, to the user device
and when the initial attach request is denied, a time for the user device to
attempt a re-attach to the IP wireless access network." For the reasons
discussed above in the context of claim 1, we are not persuaded of Examiner
error with regard to this claim limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of
claim 7. We also sustain the obviousness rejection of claims 11-14, which
12
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
depend from claim 7, 2 and for which Appellants do not make separate
arguments.
Claims 8 and 20
In rejecting dependent claim 8 and independent claim 20, the
Examiner finds that "Kadaba discloses deciding an application service
request of the user device to the IP wireless access network .... " Final Act.
3 (citing Kadaba, col. 5, 11. 21-25). Appellants acknowledge that the portion
of Kadaba on which the Examiner relies "discloses that a new call may be
from a user, and that the techniques for admission also apply to applications,
connections, or sessions for existing admitting users." App. Br. 21, 23.
Appellants argue that the cited portion of Kadaba "does not disclose
or suggest receiving an application service request from the user device
when the user device is provided access to the IP wireless access network,
and determining whether to accept or deny the application service request
based on the application services priority configuration and the resource
utilization information, as recited in claim 8." Id. at 21-22. Appellants
make similar arguments regarding claim 20. Id. at 23-24. Appellants'
arguments are similar to those made in the context of claim 1, namely that
Lee in Fig. 4, steps 402 and 406, "discloses the admission controller
obtaining priority information and an overall network load for a station
already connected to the network for transmitting an information flow to the
network through a communication channel." Id. at 21-24.
2 Appellants incorrectly state that claims 9 and 10 depend from claim 1.
App. Br. 25.
13
Appeal2014-000046
Application 12/862,447
For the reasons stated with respect to claim 1, we are not persuaded of
Examiner error regarding claims 8 and 20. Accordingly, we sustain the
rejection of claims 8 and 20.
Claims 9, 10, and 21-25 (35 US.C. § 103(a))
In rejecting claims 9, 10, and 21-25, the Examiner modifies the
teachings of Kadaba, Lee, and Yamada with the teachings of Haner. Final
Act. 4. Appellants make no arguments particular to claims 9 and 10, which
depend from claim 7; claims 21 and 22, which depend from claim 20; claims
23-25, which depend from claim 21; or the claim limitations for which the
Examiner relied on Haner. App. Br. 24--25. Thus, for the reasons stated
with respect to claims 7 and 20, we are not persuaded of Examiner error
regarding claims 9, 10, and 21-25. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of
claims 9, 10, and 21-25.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-8 and 11-20 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kadaba in view of Lee and Yamada is
affirmed.
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 9, 10, and 21-25 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Kadaba in view of Lee and Yamada
and further in view of Haner 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
gvw
14