Seven Networks, LLC

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Feb 28, 2022

2020005191 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2022)

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. 15/342,095 11/02/2016 Chaitali Sengupta 455/303/3 UTIL 2742 118194 7590 02/28/2022 NK Patent Law - Seven Networks 4917 Waters Edge Dr. Suite 275 Raleigh, NC 27606 EXAMINER CHEN, ZHITONG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/28/2022 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): abackholm@seven.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com usptomail@nkpatentlaw.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte CHAITALI SENGUPTA and YUAN KANG LEE Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 Technology Center 2600 BEFORE ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, LARRY J. HUME, and JENNIFER L. McKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judges. MCKEOWN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, 17, and 20-49. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. 1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Seven Networks, LLC. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 2 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to: A method of conserving power of a mobile device is provided. The method includes monitoring battery capacity of a mobile phone battery, switching off a radio of the mobile device when a battery capacity is below a predetermined threshold, and disabling at least one application, while allowing an application associated with a cellular call to continue enabled. Abstract. Claim 2, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 2. A method of operating a mobile device to provide service continuity comprising: connecting to a WIFI network and a cellular network; establishing at a first time a first connection over the WIFI network in response to a particular request from an application executing on a mobile device; establishing at a second time a second connection over the cellular network in response to the particular request from the application; displaying an indication of availability of the WIFI network and the cellular network; accessing data through the first connection in response to the particular request from the application; detecting a condition indicative of time responsiveness of the first connection; accessing data in response to the particular request from the application through the second connection in response to the detected condition; and using, on the mobile device, the data accessed through the first connection and the data accessed through the second connection to deliver, to the application, data in response to the particular request from the application; wherein the establishing of the second connection over the cellular network in response to the particular request occurs prior Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 3 to the detecting the condition indicative of time responsiveness of the first connection. REFERENCE(S) The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is: Name Reference Date Gupta US 2004/0131078 A1 July 8, 2004 Chandranmenon US 2004/0077341 A1 Apr. 22, 2004 Tagg US 2005/0286466 A1 Dec. 29, 2005 Singh US 7,647,422 B2 Jan. 12, 2010 Michaelis US 2004/0009751 A1 Jan. 15, 2004 Kezys US 2007/0008928 A1 Jan. 11, 2007 Krantz US 2011/0282985 A1 Nov. 17, 2011 Comer, Internetworking with TCP/IP Volume 1 Principles, Protocols, and Architecture (3rd ed. 1995) REJECTIONS2 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, and 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gupta, Chandranmenon, Michaelis, Tagg, and Singh. Final Act. 3-9. The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gupta, Chandranmenon, Michaelis, Tagg, Singh, and Kezys. Final Act. 9-10. The Examiner rejected claims 21-26, 34, 36-41, and 49 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gupta, Chandranmenon, Michaelis, Tagg, Singh, and Krantz. Final Act. 10-12. 2 We note the prior art cited in the Final Action for the rejections of dependent claims 13, 17, 21-34, and 36-49 does not include Singh. See Final Act. 9-10, 13. The rejections, however, would necessarily include Singh because the Examiner relies on Singh to reject independent claims 2 and 4. See Final Act. 3-7. Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 4 The Examiner rejected claims 27-33 and 42-48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Gupta, Chandranmenon, Michaelis, Tagg, Singh, and Comer. Final Act. 13-15. OPINION THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION BASED ON GUPTA, CHANDRANMENON, MICHAELIS, TAGG, AND SINGH Claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, and 35 The Examiner relies on a combination of Gupta, Michaelis, and Tagg as teaching the recited establishing at a first connection over a WIFI network and a second connection over the cellular network in response to the same particular request from the application and accessing data in response to the same particular request from the application through the second connection in response to a detected condition. Final Act. 3-5; Ans. 3-5. The Examiner interprets the claimed particular request as the “user action to start the connection request through the emergence [sic] app, VoIP app or Video conference app, or start to initiate http access on the Web app.” Ans. 3-4. The Examiner identifies Gupta as teaching establishing a first connection over a WIFI network and a second connection over a cellular network. Final Act. 3. The Examiner notes that Gupta does not expressly teach establishing the connections in response to the same particular request from an application or accessing data in response to the same particular request from the application through the second connection in response to a detected condition. Final Act. 5. The Examiner then relies on Tagg and Michaelis for these limitations. Final Act. 5-6; Ans. 4-5. The Examiner, in particular, explains Tagg establishes WIFI and cellular network connections in response to a request from an application, e.g., a call with the voice Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 5 application, and accessing data in response to the particular request from the application through the second connection, e.g., handing off the voice call from a WIFI network to a cellular network, in response to a detected condition. Id. In the Answer, the Examiner adds that Michaelis teaches connecting a communication application with multiple network types, including cellular and WLAN/WIFI (Ans. 4), and dynamic prioritization that results in changing networks “during the course of execution of a particular communication application running,” i.e. accessing data in response to the same particular request from an application through the second connection. Ans. 5-6 (quoting Michaelis ¶ 33). Appellant argues that neither Tagg nor Michaelis teaches or suggests “[a particular] request from an application initiates WIFI and cellular network; [and] accessing data in response to the particular request from the application through the second connection based on the detected condition.” Appeal Br. 14-16; Reply Br. 3-4. With respect to Tagg, Appellant identifies two cases, case 1 and case 3, that describe a handoff from a WIFI network (WLAN) to a cellular network (WWAN) similar to the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 14; see also Tagg Table 6 (listing six cases for switching a voice call between networks including case 1 and case 3). According to Appellant, though, neither the case 1 nor case 3 handoff satisfies the claimed limitation of accessing data in response to the same particular request through the second connection. Appeal Br. 14-15. For the case 1 non-seamless handoff, Appellant points to Figure 12, reproduced below. Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 6 Tagg’s Figure 12 Depicting an Exemplary Call Flow Diagram Including SIP Protocol Elements During Handoff between a WLAN Call and a WWAN-audio Protocol Call Appellant explains, in this case, Tagg breaks the call at 1206 and then initiates a new request through SIP call method 1208-1211, i.e. UMTS: Invite, UMTS: Ringing, UMTS: 200 OK, and UMTS: ACK. As such, Appellant argues that because Tagg “requires a new request by the mobile device to set up a new call,” Tagg does not teach or suggest the claimed “establishing a second connection over the cellular network and accessing data in response to the [same] particular request from the application.” Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 7 Appeal Br. 15. Appellant presents similar arguments with respect to Tagg’s case 3. Namely, Appellant argues, for case 3, that Tagg also requires a new request or establishes a connection based on the SIP server not in response to the same particular request. Appeal Br. 15-16. With respect to Tagg’s case 1 seamless handoff, Appellant asserts that Tagg uses an access point proxy with a duplicate path to/from the proxy via another IP route. Appeal Br. 15. Appellant maintains that the SIP server and cellular network see no change. Appeal Br. 15. According to Appellant then, this “second connection in Tagg ends at the access point and doesn’t enter the cellular network.” Appeal Br. 15. Appellant therefore argues Tagg’s case 1 seamless handoff does not establish a second connection over the cellular network as required by the claimed invention. Appeal Br. 15. With respect to Michaelis, Appellant argues that Michaelis fails to teach establishing at a second time a second connection over the cellular network in response to the particular request from the application. Reply Br. 3-4. Namely, Appellant maintains that Michaelis only discloses a second connection by another or separate application. Reply Br. 4. The Examiner responds that Appellant’s arguments with respect to Tagg “mixes specific device/network level activities of cited references, i.e. steps and processes to ensure application level request is met, with the application level activity, i.e. a particular type of call.” Ans. 2. The Examiner explains that certain network level activities occur to ensure the application level request is met. Ans. 2-3. In other words, according to the Examiner, Tagg’s voice call is the particular request from an application and the SIP protocol signals, UMTS: Invite, UMTS: Ringing, UMTS: 200 OK, and UMTS: ACK, are not a new request, but merely network level activity Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 8 to maintain call continuity. Moreover, the Examiner identifies that Michaelis also teaches accessing data through a second connection in response to a request from the same application. Ans. 4-6 (citing Michaelis ¶¶ 22-26, 32-33, 56). We find Appellant’s arguments unpersuasive. The claimed invention is directed to a method and system of operating a mobile device to provide service continuity. Spec., Claims 2 and 4. The Specification explains In accordance with an embodiment, a user equipment must decide on a particular network with which to attach, begin active services, and to which network it must handover its active services. For example, if the coverage of GSM/UMTS is poor in an office building, but the coverage of WLAN is good, the user equipment may choose to attach to the WLAN and also to receive incoming voice calls via the WLAN. Spec. p. 3, ll. 1-5. Although the Specification does not expressly define “a particular request from an application,” the Specification identifies applications, such as a VoIP application or voice application, along with corresponding services, such as a VoIP calls or voice calls. For example, the Specification describes the mobile device may include various applications, such as an email application, a browser or HTTP application, a VoIP application, and a circuit-switched application, such as a voice application, along with supporting protocols. Spec. p. 8, ll. 8-10, p. 11, ll. 27-30. The Specification also identifies exemplary applications and services as voice calls as well as “web browsing, video sharing, video telephony and conferencing, push to talk over cellular, presence services, instant messaging, multiplayer games, and concurrent IMS and CS voice services.” Spec. p. 6, ll. 15-18; see also Spec. p. 6, ll. 10-11 (noting that the UE may Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 9 choose to “originate a voice call.”) The Specification further sets forth various services in Fig. 6, including, for example, Emergency call, VoIP, Voice call, Email, and File download. Spec. Fig. 6. Appellant does not challenge the Examiner’s interpretation of the claimed particular request from an application. Nor does Appellant identify an alternative interpretation. Based on the record before us, we agree with Examiner’s interpretation that the claimed particular request from an application would be the user initiated application action, such as a voice call or VoIP call. In other words, a skilled artisan would understand that the claimed “particular request” is “user action to start the connection request through the [emergency] app, VoIP app or Video conference app, or start to initiate http access on the Web app.” Ans. 3-4. Tagg, like the claimed invention, describes a system where a mobile user downloads a software program that provides a service for calls or internet sessions and can switch those calls/sessions between available networks, such as LAN and WAN networks. See Tagg ¶ 2 (noting that Tagg “relates to a system that provides VoIP over wireless LAN and WAN networks”), ¶ 81 (noting that one advantage of Tagg is that “voice calls can be routed thru the cellular system to a local VoIP server thus saving long distance cellular charges.”), ¶ 85 (describing that Tagg’s “software allows the user to access the Internet, send and receive e-mail and obtain high bandwidth services such as MP3 files and movies” as well as “obtain[] phone calls”), ¶ 214 (disclosing that “[t]he software application runs on both the client and the host”), ¶ 277 (identifying that one of the problems addressed by Tagg is handing off a call between WWAN and WLAN Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 10 networks), ¶ 309 (noting that the phone application determines if a handoff for a call is possible). Because we agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would understand a user-initiated call, such as Tagg’s voice call with the phone application (e.g. Tagg ¶ 309), as the claimed particular request from the application, we also agree with the Examiner that Tagg’s UMTS signals 1208, 1209, 1210, and 1211, as set forth in Figure 12 (shown above), would not be interpreted as a new request. Instead, as the Examiner explains, these signals are merely network level activities to maintain the continuity of the connection for the particular request from the application, i.e., Tagg’s voice call. See, e.g., Tagg Fig. 12, ¶ 292 (noting that Tagg describes holding a call 1207). The present Specification similarly describes supporting handover of VoIP calls and Voice Call Continuity (VCC). See, e.g., Spec. p. 12, ll. 16- 28. Therefore, based on the record before us, we determine that Tagg’s non- seamless connection of case 1 teaches the disputed limitations. Appellant’s similar arguments for Tagg’s case 3 fail for the same reason. Namely, Tagg’s voice call is the particular request from the application and Tagg’s network level activities to maintain the continuity do not constitute a new request from the application. For example, Tagg teaches, in case 3, the phone application determines if handoff is possible, terminates the call when handoff is not possible, but reroutes through conferencing or other means when handoff is possible. Tagg ¶¶ 309-311. Appellant’s argument that Tagg’s case 1 seamless connection fails to establish a second connection over a cellular network as claimed is likewise unavailing. The claims broadly recite establishing a connection over the cellular network and accessing data through the second connection, without Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 11 precluding the use of a proxy. For a seamless handoff, Tagg expressly describes, in one example, “rapidly switching the IP stream from the WLAN socket to the WWAN socket.” Tagg ¶ 290. Figure 12 also depicts the connection as switching from the WLAN network to the WWAN network. Therefore, Appellant’s arguments with respect to Tagg are unpersuasive. Buttressing the Examiner’s findings, we agree Michaelis teaches establishing a second connection over a cellular network in response to the same particular request from the application. See, e.g,, Ans. 4-6. Michaelis is directed to selection of network interfaces for a particular communication application. Michaelis, Abstract. Michaelis teaches “dynamic prioritization as described herein permits consideration of changes in interface properties such as cost or system latency when connection state changes.” Michaelis ¶ 32. While Michaelis describes another application bringing up a different network interface “in some cases,” Michaelis also expressly discloses network changes on a packet-by-packet basis, including from a communication application. For example, Michaelis teaches Although a first network interface may be initially selected to serve a given packet for a communication application, AT 12 may periodically change network interfaces as network conditions change on a packet-by-packet basis. In particular, as mentioned above, AT 12 may apply the rules on a packet-by- packet basis, permitting changes in interface selection for each new packet sent by a communication application, but more typically different interface selections may apply to packets from different communication applications running concurrently on AT 12. Michaelis ¶ 25 (emphasis added); see also Ans. 4-6. In other words, Michaelis teaches establishing a second connection in response the same Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 12 communication application in addition to in response to another application. Therefore, Appellant’s argument is not persuasive. Appellant next argues that Gupta fails to teach or suggest “establishing at a first time a first connectivity over a WIFI network in response to a particular request from an application executing on the mobile device; establishing at a second time a second connectivity over a cellular network in response to the particular request from the application.” Appeal Br. 16-17 (emphasis omitted). Specifically, Appellant contends that nowhere does Gupta teach “connections of different types are established in response to the same particular request or even used by the same application.” Appeal Br. 17. We find this argument unpersuasive. Notably, the rejection relies on the combination of Gupta, Michaelis, and Tagg as teaching the disputed limitations. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). As discussed above, the Examiner determines that Tagg establishes both WLAN and WWAN connections in response to a particular request from an application, i.e. voice call. Final Act. 5 (citing Tagg Figs. 10, 11, 14, 15, ¶¶ 285-298). Figure 14, reproduced below, depicts establishing a connection over both the WLAN (WIFI) and WWAN (cellular) networks in response to a call, i.e., particular request from the application. Tagg, Fig. 14 (highlighting added); see also Tagg ¶ 288 (noting that Tagg will check the connectivity of both the WLAN and the mobile data paths during the discovery and authentication process). Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 13 Appellant fails to persuasively identify error in the Examiner’s determination. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Gupta, Michaelis, and Tagg combined fail to teach the claimed establishing limitations. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, and 35 as unpatentable over Gupta, Chandranmenon, Michaelis, Tagg, and Singh. Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 14 THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS Claims 13, 17, 21-34, and 36-49 Appellant does not present separate arguments for the patentability of claims 13, 17, 21-34, and 36-49, but instead relies on the arguments presented for independent claims 2 and 4. See, e.g., Appeal Br. 19. As discussed above, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 2 and 4. As such, we are similarly not persuaded of error in the rejection of claims 13, 17, 21-34, and 36-49 and sustain the rejections. CONCLUSION The Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, 17, and 20-49 are affirmed. DECISION SUMMARY In summary: Claims Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 35 103 Gupta, Chandranmenon, Michaelis, Tagg, Singh 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 35 13, 17 103 Gupta, Chandranmenon, Michaelis, Tagg, Kezys 13, 17 21-26, 34, 36-41, 49 103 Gupta, Chandranmenon, Michaelis, Tagg, Krantz 21-26, 34, 36-41, 49 27-33, 42- 48 103 Gupta, Chandranmenon, Michaelis, Tagg, Comer 27-33, 42- 48 Overall Outcome 2, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11-13, 16, 17, 20-49 Appeal 2020-005191 Application 15/342,095 15 TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED