Ex Parte Rantanen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 28, 2018

14366195 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 28, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/366,195 06/17/2014
146446 7590 07/02/2018
Dinsmore & Shohl LLP
801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Suite 610
Washington, DC 20004
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Tommi Rantanen
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.
114033-1704/PRAG76990PA 6016
EXAMINER
GHOWRW AL, OMAR J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/02/2018 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):
dcipdocket@dinsmore.com
denise.suter@dinsmore.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TOMMI RANTANEN, MIKKO TASA, VILLE LEV A,
ANS SI NIEMI, and MARKKU ALA-V ANNESLUOMA
Appeal2017-002150
Application 14/3 66, 195 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON J. CHUNG, SHARON PENICK, and
MICHAEL J. ENGLE, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10-16, 18, 20, and 22-24. 2 We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention is directed "to the field of radio communications and,
particularly, to managing network connectivity in a wireless apparatus."
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Nokia Technologies
Oy of Espoo, Finland. App. Br. 3.
2 Claims 5, 7, 9, 17, 19, 21, and 25-27 have been cancelled.
Appeal2017-002150
Application 14/366,195
Spec. 1 :3--4. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced
below:
1. A method comprising:
causing a wireless apparatus to establish a radio
connection with an access point;
after completing the establishment of the radio connection,
carrying out a network connection test in the wireless apparatus,
the network connection test comprising testing whether or not the
access point has a working connection with a network server and,
when the network connection test fails, terminating the radio
connection and changing a classification of the access point in
the wireless apparatus temporarily into a no-connectivity class
indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a
network connection, wherein a duration the access point is
maintained in the no-connectivity class is defined by a timer
counted in the wireless apparatus.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1--4, 8, 11, 13-16, 20, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Nanda et al. (US
2007/0249291 Al; published Oct. 25, 2007) (hereinafter, "Nanda") and Wu
et al. (US 2011/0110282 Al; published May 12, 2011) (hereinafter, "Wu").
Ans. 2-11.
Claims 6 and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nanda, Wu, and Murty et al. (US
2008/0320108 Al; published Dec. 25, 2008). Ans. 11-12.
Claims 10 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nanda, Wu, and Scherzer et al. (US
2009/0124284 Al; published May 14, 2009). Ans. 12-14.
2
Appeal2017-002150
Application 14/366,195
Claims 12 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Nanda, Wu, and Mok (US
2010/0172335 Al; published July 8, 2010). Ans. 14--15.
We have only considered those arguments that Appellants actually
raised in the Briefs. Arguments Appellants could have made, but chose not
to make, in the Briefs have not been considered and are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Nanda teaches recording failures of network
connection in a visited Access Point (hereinafter, "AP") list, which the
Examiner maps to the limitation "no-connectivity class indicating that the
access point is not capable of providing a network connection" recited in
claims 1 and 13. Ans. 2, 4 (citing Nanda ,r 33). The Examiner concludes a
person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention
(hereinafter, "PHOSITA") would have combined Nanda and Wu to enhance
throughput capacity on a WLAN. Id. at 6, 17-18 (citing Nanda ,r 20; Wu
i124).
Appellants argue Nanda fails to teach any reason to remove an AP
from the database of APs that should be avoided. App. Br. 7. In addition,
Appellants argue Nanda teaches away from ever removing an AP because a
PHOSITA would never want to remove a rogue AP from a database of APs
that should be avoided. Id. And Appellants argue Wu fails to teach a "no-
connectivity class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing
a network connection" as recited in claims 1 and 13 because Wu's wireless
terminal is not prevented from connecting to an AP in the AP fringe list. Id.
3
Appeal2017-002150
Application 14/366,195
Also, Appellants argue that because Wu fails to teach a "no-connectivity
class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network
connection," a PHOSITA would not have considered Wu's timer related to
the "AP fringe list" for modifying Nanda's "list of access points that should
be avoided." Id. at 7-8; Reply Br. 2-3. Additionally, Appellants argue the
Examiner fails to explain how a PHOSITA would combine Nanda and Wu.
App. Br. 8.
Regarding Appellants' argument that Nanda fails to teach any reason
to remove an AP from the database of APs that should be avoided (App. Br.
7), we disagree that a PHOSITA reading Nanda would conclude it teaches
away from combining with Wu because Nanda teaches maintaining a list of
APs that should be avoided, which is analogous to Wu's AP fringe list. See
Nanda ,r 37; Wu ,r 29. Although Appellants argue a PHOSITA would not
want to remove "a 'rogue access point' operated by a 'malicious individual"'
from the database of access points that should be avoided (App. Br. 7), we
agree with the Examiner that Nanda's type of access point that should be
avoided (i.e., the type of access point in the claimed "no-connectivity class")
is not limited to a "rogue" access point. See Ans. 16. Instead, Nanda
discloses the "list of access points that should be avoided" "may include, by
way of example, rogue access points." Nanda ,r 37 (emphasis added). Thus,
a "rogue" access point is only one type of access point on the list of access
points that should be avoided. Nanda further discloses the list "may also"
include other types of access points for various other reasons, such as due to
"disturbances in the wireless channel ... or for any other reason that would
result in low quality service" or because the access point is "unsuitable for a
given type of service (VoIP)." Id. ( emphasis added). Nanda's service-
4
Appeal2017-002150
Application 14/366,195
related reasons for a list of access points that should be avoided is similar to
Wu's "AP fringe list" where access points are placed temporarily if "the
quantity of consecutive failed frame exchanges" exceeds a threshold. Wu
,r 23; Final Act. 15-16 (citing Wu ,r 23). Thus, we are not persuaded by
Appellants' argument narrowly focusing on Nanda's "rogue" access points.
Regarding Appellants' argument that Wu fails to teach a "no-
connectivity class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing
a network connection" as recited in claims 1 and 13, we are not persuaded
because we agree with the Examiner's findings that Nanda teaches this
feature. Ans. 2, 4 (citing Nanda ,r,r 33, 37). As discussed above, Appellants
do not rebut the Examiner's findings that Nanda teaches a "no-connectivity
class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network
connection" as recited in claims 1 and 13. We also disagree with Appellants
because one cannot show non-obviousness "by attacking references
individually" where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413,426 (CCPA 1981)).
Appellants argue that because Wu fails to teach a "no-connectivity
class indicating that the access point is not capable of providing a network
connection," a PHOSITA would not have considered Wu's timer related to
the "AP fringe list" for modifying Nanda's "list of access points that should
be avoided." App. Br. 7-8. This argument is based on a flawed argument
(i.e., whether Wu fails to teach a "no-connectivity class indicating that the
access point is not capable of providing a network connection") explained in
the preceding paragraph. We agree with the Examiner's conclusion that a
PHOSITA would have combined Nanda and Wu to enhance throughput
5
Appeal2017-002150
Application 14/366,195
capacity on a WLAN. Ans. 6, 17-18 (citing Nanda ,r 20; Wu ,r 24). More
specifically, the cited portion of Nanda relied upon by the Examiner teaches
a WLAN. Ans. 6, 17-18 (citing Nanda ,r 20). Wu also relates to WLAN
APs. Wu ,r 19. And the cited portion of Wu teaches that a wireless terminal
may not be able to connect with a particular AP while in a dead zone, but
when the wireless terminal is moved, the AP can be removed from the fringe
list so that the wireless terminal can enjoy the benefits of a network
connection (e.g., throughput). Wu ,r 24; Ans. 17-18 (citing Wu ,r 24). Wu's
temporary dead zone is similar to the service-related reasons for an AP being
on Nanda's list of APs that should be avoided, as discussed above. As
taught by the cited portion of Wu, making an AP's time on such a list
temporary enables devices "to recover from temporary poor connection
quality situations." Wu ,r 24.
Appellants argue the dependent claim rejections should be withdrawn
for the reasons the independent claim rejections should be withdrawn. App.
Br. 9-10. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of:
(1) independent claims 1 and 13; and (2) dependent claims 2--4, 6, 8, 10-12,
14--16, 18, 20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6, 8, 10-16,
18, 20, and 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
6