Ex Parte Park et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 31, 2017

13936008 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 31, 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.
13/936,008 07/05/2013 Jongman PARK 0203-1078 9143
68103 7590 09/05/2017
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
ATKINS JR., GEORGE CALVIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/05/2017 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO. LTD.1
Appeal 2017-00240
Application 13/936,008
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1-18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Invention
Appellants disclose a communication network control method that
“includes measuring received signal strength and Internet Protocol (IP)
packet transmission and reception amounts in a state where the terminal is
1 Jongman Park, Jeongseok Seo, and Dongwook Lee are the inventors.
Appeal 2017-002240
Application 13/936,008
connected to an IP network” and switching to a cellular network in certain
circumstances. Abstract.
Claims 1 and 17, n
are representative:
Exemplary Claims
below with key limitations isize
1. A communication network connection control method of a
terminal, the method comprising:
measuring received signal strength and Internet Protocol (IP)
packet transmission and reception amounts in a state where the
terminal is connected to an IP network;
switching, when the received signal strength is equal to or less
than a predetermined received signal strength threshold, from
the connection to the IP network to a connection to a cellular
network,
comparing, when the received signal strength is greater than
the threshold, the IP packet reception amount with a
predetermined reception threshold', and
switching, when the IP packet reception amount is equal to or
less than the reception threshold, from the connection to the IP
network to the connection to the cellular network.
17. A communication network connection control method of a
terminal, the method comprising:
checking, when an Access Point (AP) is detected in a state
where the terminal is not connected to an Internet Protocol (IP)
network, a join count to the AP;
measuring, when the join count is greater than a predetermined
join count threshold, a movement speed of the terminal,
ignoring, when the movement speed is greater than a
predetermined movement speed threshold, the detected AP; and
connecting, when the movement speed is equal to or less than
the movement speed threshold, to the detected AP.
2
Appeal 2017-002240
Application 13/936,008
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 1-3, 10-12, and 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Balasubramanian et al. (US 2009/
0116447 Al; published May 7, 2009) and Lim (US 2010/0304738 Al;
published Dec. 2, 2010). Final Act. 5-14.
The Examiner rejects claims 4 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Balasubramanian, Lim, and Chhabra et al. (US
2009/0278705 Al; published Nov. 12, 2009). Final Act. 14-17.
The Examiner rejects claims 5-9 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Balasubramanian, Lim, Chhabra, and Singamsetty
etal. (US 2011/0305232 Al; published Dec. 15,2011). Final Act. 17-23,
25-28.
The Examiner rejects claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chhabra and Singamsetty. Final Act. 24-25.
ANALYSIS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings of facts
and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the Action from which this
appeal was taken. We have considered Appellants’ arguments, but do not
find them persuasive of error. We provide the following explanation for
emphasis.
Claims 1—16
In rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds that
Balasubramanian’s providing for a handoff to a target domain based at least
in part on a determination that a serving domain state is approaching a
serving domain drop threshold teaches or suggests switching, when the
received signal strength is equal to or less than a predetermined received
3
Appeal 2017-002240
Application 13/936,008
signal strength threshold, from the connection to the IP network to a
connection to a cellular network. Final Act. 7 (citing Balasubramanian Fig.
5).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred by improperly construing the
recitations of claim 1
such that the decision to switch between networks does not
require the actual parameter of the received signal strength or IP
reception amount but rather merely the use of the parameter of
the received signal strength or IP reception amount in additional
intermediary calculations where the result of the intermediary
calculations is used to determine whether to switch between
networks.
App. Br. 6; see also Reply Br. 3 (“the independent claims recite that a single
parameter (e.g., a received signal strength) is used to trigger the ‘switching
. . . to a cellular network’”).
Appellants’ contention is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1,
and is therefore unpersuasive of error. Specifically, Appellants construe
“switching, when the received signal strength is equal to or less than a
predetermined received signal strength threshold” to mean that the switching
occurs when and only when (or because) the recited condition is met.
However, the recited condition fails to include language directed to making
the recited condition a trigger in the manner posited by Appellants. Thus, a
reasonably broad interpretation, in light of the Specification, of the disputed
switching recitation merely requires that switching occurs when, but not
necessarily because, the recited condition is met.
Even if the recited condition (i.e., “when the received signal strength
is equal to or less than a predetermined received signal strength threshold”)
was a triggering condition, Appellants do not persuasively distinguish the
4
Appeal 2017-002240
Application 13/936,008
recited condition from Balasubramanian’s monitoring of a serving domain,
which includes “determining whether RSSI [received signal strength
indication] is decreasing at a predetermined rate.” Balasubramanian 78;
see also Balasubramanian Fig. 4.
Appellants argue that Balasubramanian teaches “measuring a first
RSSI value (RSSIi) at a first time instance (ti), measuring a second RSSI
value (RSSfi) at a second time instance (fi) after the first time instance, and
finding a rate of change (A)” calculated as “(RSSfi-RSSIi)/(t2-ti).” Reply
Br. 6; see also App. Br. 8-9 (citing Balasubramanian 78). Appellants
argue Balasubramanian compares the rate of change (A), rather than either
RSSIi or RSSfi, to a threshold value. However, claim 1 merely recites that
“the received signal strength is equal to or less than a predetermined
received signal strength threshold” without restricting the predetermined
received signal strength threshold to an unchanging value or reciting that a
particular basis for ascertaining that threshold signal strength has been
reached.
Based on Appellants’ characterization of Balasubramanian’s
teachings, there exists a received signal strength threshold (RSSIt) that is
predetermined at time fi. Basic algebra shows that if there is a rate of
change threshold (At) that must be met such that A is less than or equal to At
(i.e., the received signal strength indication has dropped at too fast a rate)
then RSSIt is equal to At(fi-ti)+RSSIi (i.e., RSSfi is less than or equal to
RSSIt if and only if A is less than or equal to At). It is irrelevant whether, as
Appellants contend, Balasubramanian relies on the rate of change meeting a
threshold rather than on a received signal strength threshold directly because
5
Appeal 2017-002240
Application 13/936,008
the recitation does not limit how it is ascertained that a received signal
strength is less than or equal to a received signal strength threshold.
Appellants also argue that Balasubramanian performs a handoff to a
target domain based on “the target domain currently residing above the drop
threshold . . ., and the target domain state is below the add threshold . . .,
and the serving domain state currently approaching the drop threshold.”
App. Br. 10 (citing Balasubramanian Fig. 4). Appellants argue that “[sjince
Balasubramanian requires that all three conditions must be met in both
scenarios and fails to consider performing a handover when [fewer] than all
of the conditions are met.... [o]ne of ordinary skill in the art would never
pick and choose individual determinations of Balasubramanian in isolation
and expect the same result as required by the reference.” App. Br. 10.
However, as discussed above, the claim recitations do not require that the
received signal strength is equal to or less than a predetermined received
signal strength threshold to serve as the trigger for switching to a cellular
network. Moreover, the method of claim 1 does not preclude the claimed
communication network connection control from being performed only
when other conditions (e.g., conditions related to a target domain) are met.
For example, a device that only performs the claimed method when a
cellular network is available to switch to would fall within a broad but
reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention, read in light of the
Specification. Thus, Appellants’ arguments are not commensurate with the
scope of the claimed invention and do not demonstrate that the Examiner
impermissibly relied on hindsight reasoning.
The Examiner further finds Balasubramanian’s monitoring of packet
error rates teaches or suggests comparing, when the received signal strength
6
Appeal 2017-002240
Application 13/936,008
is greater than the threshold, the IP packet reception amount with a
predetermined reception threshold. Final Act. 7-8 (citing Balasubramanian
11 77, Fig. 5).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “[w]hen the current
RSSI value is greater than the predetermined RSSI threshold value, Lim
requires that the mobile terminal maintain communications with the WLAN
. . . and ignore ‘any affects associated with the transmission error
determination ....’” App. Br. 10 (citing Lim 66); see also Lim Fig. 5.
However, as noted above, the Examiner also finds that Balasubramanian
teaches or suggests this recitation. Appellants contend, without support, that
Balasubramanian fails to teach or suggest the disputed recitation, and
therefore the combination of Balasubramanian and Lim “cannot possibly be
relied upon to teach ‘switching, when the IP packet reception amount is
equal to or less than the reception threshold,... to the cellular network.”
App. Br. 11. Because Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the
Examiner’s findings—as they pertain to the teachings and suggestions of
Balasubramanian—Appellants’ arguments are unpersuasive.
Appellants further argue the Examiner erroneously construes the
“claim such that the decision to switch from the IP network to the cellular
network includes always comparing ‘the IP packet reception amount with a
predetermined reception threshold’ no matter whether ‘the received signal
strength is equal to or less than a predetermined received signal strength
threshold’ or not.” Reply. Br. 5. However, as with the when-clause of the
first switching recitation, the recitation of “comparing, when the received
signal strength is greater than the threshold ...” does not require that
comparing occur when and only when (or because) the recited condition has
7
Appeal 2017-002240
Application 13/936,008
been met. Therefore, Appellants’ arguments, being incommensurate with
the scope of the claimed invention, are unpersuasive.
The Examiner further relies on Balasubramanian’s handoff to a target
domain when a serving domain approaches a drop threshold to teach,
suggest, or otherwise render obvious switching, when the IP packet
reception amount is equal to or less than the reception threshold, from the
connection to the IP network to the connection to the cellular network. Final
Act. 7-8 (citing Balasubramanian Fig. 5). Appellants do not persuasively
rebut this findings, but rather contend the Examiner erred by combining
Fim’s teachings and suggestions related to this recitation with
Balasubramanian
since the Examiner alleges that Balasubramanian already
discloses “comparing the IP packet reception amount with the
predetermined reception threshold,” and “switching, when the
IP packet reception amount is equal to or less than the reception
threshold, from the connection to the IP network to the
connection to the cellular network,” [and therefore,] it would be
completely unnecessary for one of ordinary skill in the art to
look to any other reference.
App. Br. 11.
Appellants’ arguments at best show that the Examiner’s findings with
respect to Lim are redundant with the Examiner’s unrebutted findings with
respect to Balasubramanian. Because the Examiner’s findings persuasively
show that Balasubramanian alone renders obvious the disputed recitations,
Appellants’ contention that the Examiner erred in combining
Balasubramanian and Lim is unpersuasive of reversible error.
For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 3, 10-12, and 16, which Appellants do not
argue separately. App. Br. 12. Appellants merely contend that Chhabra and
8
Appeal 2017-002240
Application 13/936,008
Singamsetty fail to cure the alleged deficiencies of Balasubramanian and
Lim. App. Br. 12-13. Because we find Balasubramanian and Lim are not
deficient, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims
4-9 and 13-15.
Claims 17 and 18
In rejecting claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner finds
that Chhabra’s disclosure of a WiFi transceiver that can “be powered ON
when the portable device is moving at a velocity less than a predetermined
velocity V” renders obvious measuring a movement speed of the terminal.
Final Act. 24 (quoting Chhabra ]| 34). The Examiner relies on Singamsetty’s
use of a trial count compared with a trial limit to render obvious such
measuring when the join count is greater than a predetermined join count
threshold. Final Act. 25 (citing Singamsetty]} 32, Fig. 7); see also Ans. 6
(citing Chhabra ]| 31).
Appellants contend the Examiner erred because “Singamsetty fails to
teach or suggest measuring any movement of a device.” App. Br. 15; see
also Reply Br. 11. However, the Examiner correctly relies on Chhabra, not
Singamsetty, for the measuring of a movement speed of a terminal. Final
Act. 24. Moreover, the when-clause of claim 17, like the when-clauses
recited in claim 1, does not require that the measurement take place when
and only when (or because) the recited condition is met. Therefore, we do
not find error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings and
suggestions of Chhabra and Singamsetty to render obvious “measuring,
when the join count is greater than a predetermined join count threshold, a
movement speed of the terminal,” as recited in claim 17.
9
Appeal 2017-002240
Application 13/936,008
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 17. Appellants merely contend that Balasubramanian and Lim fail
to cure the alleged deficiencies of Chhabra and Singamsetty. App. Br. 12.
As Chhabra and Singamsetty are not deficient, we also sustain the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-18.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
10