Ex Parte Kotecha et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 8, 201612862447 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 8, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation