Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 18, 2013

11486649 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 18, 2013)

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