Ex Parte Park et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 18, 201311486649 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte VINCENT D. PARK, M. SCOTT CORSON, and GEORGE TSIRTSIS ____________________ Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MICHAEL R. ZECHER, MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–29. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim The claimed subject matter relates to packet routing in a wireless communications environment, particularly to providing refined quality of service with respect to traffic flows associated with a terminal (Spec. ¶2). Claims 1, 19, and 29 are illustrative and are reproduced below with key limitations emphasized: 1. A method for routing a data packet in a cellular communications environment, comprising: receiving a data packet; determining that the data packet should be provided to a particular point of attachment from amongst a plurality of available points of attachment with respect to a wireless terminal in the cellular communications environment, wherein the determination is made based at least in part upon content of the data packet; encapsulating the data packet in a Logical Link Control (LLC) frame; and indicating that the LLC frame should be directed towards the particular point of attachment. 19. A method for routing packets in a wireless communications environment, comprising: receiving a data packet that is addressed to a node other than an access node at the access node; Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 3 determining that at least a data payload portion of the data packet is intended for the access node by analyzing the data packet; and executing instructions at the access node based at least in part upon contents of the data packet. 29. A communications apparatus comprising: a memory that retains instructions for intercepting a data packet intended for a different wireless communications network entity; and a processor that executes the instructions. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Baker Norman U.S. 5,490,139 U.S. 5,737,328 Feb. 6, 1996 Apr. 7, 1998 Forssell U.S. 2004/0120317 A1 June 24, 2004 Alberto Leon-Garcia and Indra Widjaja, Communication Networks: Fundamental Concepts and Key Architectures, McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2d ed., pp. 44–52 and 429–31 (2004) (“Leon-Garcia”). Rejections The Examiner makes the following rejections: Claims 19 and 21–25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Baker (Ans. 4–6). Claims 1–18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forssell and Leon-Garcia (Ans. 7–18). Claims 26–28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Baker (Ans. 18–20). Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 4 Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baker and Forssell (Ans. 20–21). Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baker and Norman (Ans. 21–22). ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments as follows. Claims 1–181 Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue of whether the Examiner erred in combining the teachings of Forssell and Leon-Garcia to find claim 1 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Forssell “relates to transferring data over a radio interface in General Packet Radio System (GPRS) networks” (Forssell ¶1). The Examiner finds all limitations of claim 1 disclosed by Forssell except “wherein the determination is made based at least in part upon content of the received data packet” (Ans. 7-8). The Examiner further finds that Leon-Garcia teaches that in the Open Systems Interconnection (“OSI”) reference model, a layer-n entity receives an information block from a layer-(n+1) entity and uses control information contained in the information block to form a header that indicates a layer-(n+1) entity for which the information block is intended 1 Appellants present arguments collectively for claims 1–18. (App. Br. 13- 17.) We accordingly treat claim 1 as representative of claims 2–18. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 5 (Ans. 8). The Examiner accordingly concludes that it would have been obvious to modify the logical link control (“LLC”) unit of Forssell to include determining a layer-(n+1) recipient based on the control information included in the received data unit as taught by Leon-Garcia (Ans. 8). Appellants observe that the message transferred from the GPRS Mobility Management (“GMM”) unit to the LLC unit, which the Examiner identifies as the “data packet” recited in claim 1 (Ans. 7), corresponds to an Activate PDP Context Request Message (App. Br. 13). Appellants refer to the 3GPP standards, noting that: [n]othing in the 3GPP Specification definitions for the Activate PDP Context Request messages appears to indicate that content contained within the Activate PDP Context Request message could be used to determine “a particular point of attachment from amongst a plurality of available points of attachment with respect to a wireless terminal in the cellular communications environment” as recited in independent claim 1 . . . . (App. Br. 14). Appellants conclude that the combination made by the Examiner would require a modification to the 3GPP standard to be carried over to an Activate PDP Context request message (App. Br. 14–15), which they suggest would be burdensome (App. Br. 15). We are not persuaded by this argument because the procedural hurdles associated with modifying existing standards are not directly relevant to an obviousness inquiry. Rather, 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 Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). First, as the Examiner correctly observes, the invention of Forssell is already directed to overcoming problems caused by the existing 3GPP standard (Ans. 31, citing Forssell ¶¶ 9, 11–13, 50–52). Second, the Examiner has Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 6 presented detailed analysis explaining why one of skill in the art would reasonably apply the teachings of Leon-Garcia to the communication devices of Forssell, such that the LLC layer would use information in the received packet data message to determine a particular SAP to receive the LLC frame (Ans. 25–32). We agree with this articulated reasoning, which we adopt as our own, and conclude that this reasoning is based on sufficient rational underpinnings to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 1, as well as the rejections of claims 2–18. Claims 19–282 Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue of whether the Examiner erred in finding that Baker reasonably teaches or suggests the combination of “receiving a data packet that is addressed to a node other than an access node at the access node,” and “determining that at least a data payload portion of the data packet is intended for the access node by analyzing the data packet,” as recited in independent claim 19. The Examiner finds that Baker teaches a method for routing packets in a wireless communications environment (Ans. 4), particularly noting Baker’s disclosure of encapsulating an initial data packet intended for a final destination and forwarding the encapsulated data packet to an intermediate node (Ans. 5, citing Baker, col. 3, ll. 41–53). The Examiner finds that “the 2 Appellants present arguments collectively for claims 19 and 21–28. (App. Br. 8-12.) We accordingly treat claim 19 as representative of claims 21–28. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv). Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 7 encapsulated packet can reasonably be interpreted as being addressed to both the intermediate access point and the original-destination node” (Ans. 23). Appellants disagree with this finding, arguing that a “payload containing address information is not necessarily ‘addressed to’ all of the addresses contained therein” (Reply Br. 3). Appellants offer two analogies to illustrate the point, one in which a phone book is placed within a package that is shipped to one particular customer, and one in which a box containing a high number of letters is sent from one post office to another post office during the delivery process (Reply Br. 3). It is well-settled that the Office is obligated to give claim terms their broadest reasonable interpretation, taking into account any enlightenment by way of definitions or otherwise found in the specification. In re ICON Health and Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“[T]he PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable construction consistent with the specification. . . . Therefore, we look to the specification to see if it provides a definition for claim terms, but otherwise apply a broad interpretation”); see also In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). This long-standing principle is based on the notion that “during patent prosecution when claims can be amended, ambiguities should be recognized, scope and breadth of language explored, and clarification imposed.” In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989). That is, a patent applicant has the opportunity and responsibility to remove any ambiguity in claim term meaning by amending the application. “Only in this way can uncertainties of claim scope be removed, as much as possible, during the administrative process.” Id. at 322. Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 8 Appellants have identified no specific definition of “addressed to” in the Specification. While the proffered analogies are helpful, we conclude that those analogies are of limited relevance because each involves a large number of encapsulated addresses. Baker’s disclosure instead involves only a pair of addresses, one for the initial data packet and one for the encapsulated data packet. A more relevant analogy is, thus, the postal “care of” practice in which a package is addressed to two entities, one of which is designated as an intermediary with responsibility to forward the package to the other. Under the broadest-reasonable-interpretation standard, we are accordingly not persuaded that the Examiner erred in construing “addressed to” in a manner that supports the finding that Baker’s encapsulated data packet is addressed to both the intermediate access point and the original- destination node. We, therefore, conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Baker teaches or suggests the combination of “receiving a data packet that is addressed to a node other than an access node at the access node,” and “determining that at least a data payload portion of the data packet is intended for the access node by analyzing the data packet.” We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 19, as well as the rejections of claims 21–28. Although claim 20 is addressed under a separate heading, Appellants merely reference the arguments presented for claims 19 and 21–28, noting that “Forssell is insufficient to cure the suggestion and disclosure deficiencies of Baker” (App. Br. 17). Thus, for the same reasons discussed above, we also sustain the rejection of claim 20. Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 9 Claim 29 Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue of whether the Examiner erred in finding that Baker teaches or suggests “intercepting a data packet intended for a different wireless communications network entity,” as recited in independent claim 29. Appellants contend that the encapsulated data packet in Baker is not “intercepted” by the intermediate node “because the encapsulated IP data packet is intended for the intermediate node” (App. Br. 17, emphasis omitted). Applying the broadest reasonable interpretation of “intercepting” in light of the Specification, we are not persuaded by this argument. We note, for example, that the Specification provides examples of “intercepting” messages by the access node for which they are intended (see, e.g., Spec. ¶69, which describes an example in which access node 802 “intercepts” messages addressed to different network entities but intended for access node 802). We, therefore, conclude that the Examiner did not err in finding that Baker teaches or suggests “intercepting a data packet intended for a different wireless communications network entity,” as recited in independent claim 29. We accordingly sustain the rejection of claim 29. Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 10 CONCLUSION3 On the record before us, we conclude the following: (1) the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 19 and 21–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Baker; (2) the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Forssell and Leon-Garcia; (3) the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 26–28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baker; (4) the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baker and Forssell; and (5) the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 29 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Baker and Norman. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–29 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). AFFIRMED 3 If prosecution of the present patent application resumes, the Examiner should consider whether the “machine-readable medium” recited in claims 15, 17, and 28 encompasses a carrier wave and, therefore, is directed to nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See In re Nuijten, 500 F3.d 1346, 1356–57 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Subject Matter Eligibility of Computer Readable Media, 1351 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 212 (Feb. 23, 2010); see also Ex parte Mewherter, 2013 WL 3291360 (PTAB May 8, 2013) (precedential). Appeal 2011-004768 Application 11/486,649 11 ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation