Ex Parte Dees et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 26, 2018

14344065 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/344,065 03/11/2014 Walter Dees
24737 7590 03/28/2018
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
465 Columbus A venue
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595
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.
2011P00820WOUS01 3066
EXAMINER
SOE,KYAWZ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/28/2018 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):
patti. demichele@Philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
katelyn.mulroy@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WALTER DEES and
KOEN JOHANNA GUILLAUME HOLTMAN
Appeal2017-010343
Application 14/344,065
Technology Center 2400
Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ERIC B. CHEN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
CHEN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-010343
Application 14/344,065
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1-11and15-18. Claims 12-14 have been cancelled. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to a docking station configured to
establish a secure wireless connection between the docking station and a
dockee device for accessing the wireless network access point, establishing a
secure wireless connection between the docking station and the wireless
network access point. (Abstract.)
Claim 1 is exemplary with disputed limitations in italics:
1. A wireless docking system, comprising:
a dockee device and a docking station, wherein the docking
station is configured to:
establish a bidirectional communication channel between the
docking station and the dockee device, wherein the dockee device has
access information for accessing a wireless network access point via
an initial connection between the dockee device and the wireless
network access point;
transmit capability information of the docking station to the
dockee device via the bidirectional communication channel in
response to a request from the dockee device, the capability
information including a capability of the docking station to take over
the connection between the dockee device and the wireless network
access point;
establish a secure bidirectional communication channel between
the docking station and the dockee in order to receive the access
information from the dockee device, wherein the bidirectional
communication channel is closed when the secure bidirectional
communication channel is established;
2
Appeal2017-010343
Application 14/344,065
receive a command from the dockee device to take over the
connection between the dockee device and the wireless network
access point using the access information; and
enable a tunneling connection between the dockee device and
the wireless network access point via the docking station acting as a
proxy.
Claims 1-7, 9-11, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Suumaki (US 2012/0265913 Al; Oct. 18, 2012) and
Laine (US 2012/0099566 Al; Apr. 26, 2012).
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Suumaki, Laine, and Walker (US 2007/0097934 Al; May 3, 2007).
ANALYSIS
§ 103 Rejection-Suumaki and Laine
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments (App. Br. 11-12; see also
Reply Br. 2---6, 9-10) that the combination of Suumaki and Laine would not
have rendered obvious independent claim 1, which includes the limitation:
docking station is configured to . . . transmit capability
information of the docking station to the dockee device via the
bidirectional communication channel in response to a request
from the dockee device, the capability information including a
capability of the docking station to take over the connection
between the dockee device and the wireless network access
point.
The Examiner found that the Dockee device of Suumaki, which
forwards gathered information, such as IP configuration (i.e. IP address and
MAC address) of the Dockee device over link 120, corresponds to the
limitation "docking station is configured to ... transmit capability
information of the docking station to the dockee device via the bidirectional
3
Appeal2017-010343
Application 14/344,065
communication channel in response to a request from the dockee device"
(Final Act. 4--5.) Alternatively, the Examiner found that the Wireless
Docking Protocol (WDP) between Dockee and Docking Station of Suumaki,
as illustrated in Figure 3, corresponds to the limitation "docking station is
configured to ... transmit capability information of the docking station to
the dockee device via the bidirectional communication channel in response
to a request from the dockee device." (Ans. 4--5.) We do not agree with the
Examiner's findings.
Suumaki relates to "creating a wireless docking group within a
wireless environment." (i-f l.) Figure 2A of Suumaki illustrates a wireless
network diagram, which includes mobile phone 1 OOA and single stack
printer lOOE connected to access point lOOB via links 210 and 212,
respectively. (i-fi-f 133-34, 280.) Figure 2A of Suumaki further illustrates the
addition of Docking Station lOOF, such that mobile phone lOOA is
connected to Docking Station 1 OOF over new link 120, and Docking Station
lOOF is connected to access point lOOB over new link 214. (i-f 133.)
Suumaki explains that "Dockee 1 OOA may forward the gathered information
over link 120, including information about the Dockee device's capabilities
and characteristics of one or more wireless devices within a wireless docking
group." (i-f 152.) In particular, Suumaki explains that such information
includes "IP configuration (IP address, DHCP status, DNS, etc)" (i-f 164) and
"Device identification, e.g. Device name, IP address, [of] MAC address"
(i-f 178). Moreover, Suumaki explains that "Wireless Docking Protocol in
the Dockee device lOOA transfers the gathered information over link 120 to
the network configuration program 144 in the Docking Station lOOF."
(i-f 248.)
4
Appeal2017-010343
Application 14/344,065
Although the Examiner cited to Dockee lOOA of Suumaki or the
WDP in Dockee device 1 OOA of Suumaki, the Examiner has provided
insufficient evidence to support a finding that Suumaki teaches the limitation
"docking station is configured to ... transmit capability information of the
docking station to the dockee device via the bidirectional communication
channel in response to a request from the dockee device." In particular,
Suumaki explains that "Dockee 1 OOA ... forward[ s] the gathered
information over link 120, including information about the Dockee device's
capabilities and characteristics of one or more wireless devices within a
wireless docking group" (i-f 152) and that "[WDP] in the Dockee device
lOOA transfers the gathered information over link 120 to the network
configuration program 144 in the Docking Station 1 OOF" (i-f 248), rather than
Docking Station 1 OOF transmitting information to Dockee 1 OOA, as required
by claim 1. Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not demonstrated that
Suumaki teaches the limitation "docking station is configured to ... transmit
capability information of the docking station to the dockee device via the
bidirectional communication channel in response to a request from the
dockee device," as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "in
paragraphs [O 152---0179], Suumaki describes a Dockee transmitting its own
capabilities information to a Docking Station" and "[t]his description is just
the opposite of Appellants' docking station transmitting capability
information to the dockee device in response to a dockee's request." (App.
Br. 11-12 (emphasis omitted); see also Reply Br. 2---6.)
Alternatively, the Examiner found that the docking station of Laine,
which transmits a response to a request from a mobile device, as illustrated
5
Appeal2017-010343
Application 14/344,065
in Figure 7, corresponds to the limitation "docking station is configured to
... transmit capability information of the docking station to the dockee
device via the bidirectional communication channel in response to a request
from the dockee device." (Ans. 5-7.) Again, we do not agree with the
Examiner's findings.
Laine relates to wireless communication, "particularly to out-of-band
initialization of a wireless docking environment." (i-f l.) Figure 7 of Laine
illustrates a sequence diagram for mobile device 1 OOA, display device 1 OOB,
and docking station 1 OOF. (i-f 189.) Laine explains that "mobile device
1 OOA sends to the wireless docking station 1 OOF, second short-range
communication connection parameters in a second handover request 70' that
includes a timer value related to the expected completion time of a
connection handover procedure." (i-f 191.) In response, Laine explains that
"wireless docking station 1 OOF replies with a handover select message 72'
that includes Wi-Fi settings and credentials." (Id.)
Although the Examiner cited to docking station lOOF of Laine, the
Examiner has provided insufficient evidence to support a finding that
Suumaki teaches the limitation:
docking station is configured to . . . transmit capability
information of the docking station to the dockee device via the
bidirectional communication channel in response to a request
from the dockee device, the capability information including a
capability of the docking station to take over the connection
between the dockee device and the wireless network access
point.
In particular, while Laine explains that docking station 1 OOF transmits
Wi-Fi settings and credentials to mobile device lOOA, such transmission is
in the context of handover request 70' and is silent with respect to such Wi-
6
Appeal2017-010343
Application 14/344,065
Fi settings and credentials having "a capability ... to take over the
connection between the dockee device and the wireless network access
point," as required by claim 1. Thus, on this record, the Examiner has not
demonstrated that Laine teaches the limitation:
docking station is configured to . . transmit capability
information of the docking station to the dockee device via the
bidirectional communication channel in response to a request
from the dockee device, the capability information including a
capability of the docking station to take over the connection
between the dockee device and the wireless network access
point,
as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants' arguments that "'Wi-Fi
settings and credentials' are entirely different from 'capability of the
docking station to take over the connection between the dockee device and
the wireless network access point,' as recited in claim 1."' (Reply Br. 9-10.)
Thus, we do not sustain the rejection of independent claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a). Claims 2-7, 9, and 10 depend from independent claim 1.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 2-7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 1.
Independent claims 11, 15, and 17 recite limitations similar to those
discussed with respect to independent claim 1. We do not sustain the
rejection of claims 11, 15, and 17, as well as dependent claims 16 and 18, for
the same reasons discussed with respect to claim 1.
§ 103 Rejection- Suumaki, Laine, and Walker
Claim 8 depend from independent claim 1. Walker was cited by the
Examiner for teaching the additional features of claim 8. (Final Act. 11-12.)
7
Appeal2017-010343
Application 14/344,065
However, the Examiner's application of Walker does not cure the above
noted deficiencies of Suumaki and Laine.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-11 and 15-18 is reversed.
REVERSED
8