Ex Parte Belimpasakis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2016

10098848 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/098,848 03/15/2002
11764 7590
Ditthavong & Steiner, P,C,
44 Canal Center Plaza
Suite 322
Alexandria, VA 22314
06/23/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Petros Belimpasakis
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.
P2495USOO 3083
EXAMINER
KORSAK, OLEG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2492
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2016 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):
docket@dcpatent.com
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte PETROS BELIMP ASAKIS, ROD WALSH, and TONI P AILA
Appeal2014-007710
Application 10/098,848 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant(s) appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 10-16, 26-32, 39--41, 45, and 47-50. 2 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 The real party in interest is Nokia Corporation.
2 Claims 33-38, 42--44, and 46 have been cancelled. Claims 1-9 and 17-25
stand withdrawn from further consideration as being directed to a nonelected
invention.
Appeal2014-007710
Application 10/098,848
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention is a system and method for "the reception of
content items." Various data types (movies, music, file downloads) can
arrive at the network interfaces of a mobile device (e.g., a laptop computer).
The device "may also receive service announcements that impart
information concerning available content." Spec. 3. These announcements
could include information such as the network access points offering the
content item. Id. A Best Selection Module (BSM) makes use of message
relating to the ideality of using various network access points and determines
the best network access point for the device's receipt of a particular content
item. Spec. 6.
Independent claim 10, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
10. A method, comprising:
receiving one or more service announcements, each of said
service announcements being in at least one of a plurality of
formats;
extracting one or more service properties from said one or more
service announcements;
storing said one or more service properties in a predetermined
format,
wherein the predetermined format preserves the one or more
formats corresponding to each of the one or more service
announcements;
receiving, at a device, information relating to which of one or
more offered network access points are actually available to the
device; and
2
Appeal2014-007710
Application 10/098,848
determining which of the available network access points is the
best for receiving a selected content item.
REJECTIONS3
Claims 10---14, 16, 26---30, 32, 39--41, 45, and 47-50 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Birdwell (US
6,108,706, issued Aug. 22, 2000), Connelly (US 2002/014359 Al, published
Oct. 3, 2002), Stewart (US 6,732,176 Bl, issued May 4, 2004), and Howard
(US WO 02/13415 A2, published Feb. 14, 2002).
Claims 15 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Birdwell, Connelly, Stewart, Howard, and Laux.
ISSUE
Appellants argue that Howard fails to disclose determining which of
the available network access points is the best for receiving a selected
content item. 1A .. pp. Br. 10. According to Appellants, Hmvard merely
identifies a "most efficient route" to send relevant information from a
database, and Appellants allege that a "route" is not an "access point." Id.
Appellants' arguments present us with the following issue:
Does Howard disclose determining which of the available network
access points is the best for receiving a selected content item?
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Section 103(a) forbids issuance of a patent when 'the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 10, 26, 45, 47, and 49
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Ans. 2.
3
Appeal2014-007710
Application 10/098,848
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.'
KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). The question of
obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual determinations
including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any differences
between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of skill in
the art, and ( 4) where in evidence, so-called secondary considerations.
Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966). See also KSR, 550
U.S. at 407, ("While the sequence of these questions might be reordered in
any particular case, the [Graham] factors continue to define the inquiry that
controls.")
ANALYSIS
CLAIMS 10-14, 16, 26-30, 32, 39--41, 45, and 47-50
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Howard merely
selects a most efficient route, rather than the "best access point." ii~pp. Br.
10.
We agree with the Examiner that "'determining which of the available
network access points is the best for receiving a selected content item'
necessarily dictates that there is always a path (or route) between a device
and currently the best access point." Ans. 6. Howard discloses subroutine
430, in which routine 400 "determines the routing scheme of the received
data." Howard 18. Routing routine 430 analyzes the received "raw text data
of the network state." Howard 19. Subsequently, routing routine 425 (sic,
430) "retrieves relevant information from a data storage location," and then
"identifies the most efficient route to send the relevant information from the
database." Howard 20. "Typically, the analyzer 196 completes this step. In
4
Appeal2014-007710
Application 10/098,848
completing this step, this analyzer can begin looking for patterns that can
affect future data packets received for processing." Id. "[T]he analyzer 196
can use the last state of the network in combination with predefined rules in
predicting the location of certain network nodes." Id.
Given's Howard's teachings, we find that Howard teaches
determining which of the available network access points is the best for
receiving a selected content item, because we agree with the Examiner that
the "most efficient route" in Howard necessarily includes the "best" access
point for receiving said content item. Appellants' Specification does not
define a "best" network access point, but does disclose that "properties
indicating the level of success enjoyed by various devices in receiving
content items" could include "signal-to-noise-ratio, capacity, cost, and
QoS." Spec. 12. We find that these exemplary properties correspond to the
properties of a "most efficient route" as disclosed by Howard.
We conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 10-14,
16, 26-30, 32, 39--41, 45, and 47-50 under§ 103 as being unpatentable over
Birdwell, Connelly, Stewart, and Howard. We sustain the Examiner's §
103(a) rejection.
CLAIMS 15 AND 31
Appellants' sole argument concerning these dependent claims is that
Laux "does not cure the previously argued deficiencies of the combination
of Birdwell, Connelly, Stewart, and Howard." App. Br. 12.
Because we conclude, supra, that the combination of reference is not
deficient, we sustain the Examiner's § 103 rejection of claims 15 and 31
5
Appeal2014-007710
Application 10/098,848
over Birdwell, Connelly, Stewart, Howard, and Laux, for the same reasons
given with respect to claim 10.
CONCLUSION
Howard discloses determining which of the available network access
points is the best for receiving a selected content item.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 10-16, 26-32, 39--41, 45,
and 47-50 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6