12993862 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

Ex Parte Forssell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 2016

12993862 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/993,862 11/22/2010 32294 7590 07/05/2016 Squire PB (NV A/DC Office) 8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE 14THFLOOR VIENNA, VA 22182-6212 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Mika Fors sell 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. 089229.00401 9146 EXAMINER LING, CHHIAN ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2446 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/05/2016 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): IPGENERAL TYC@SQUIREpb.COM SONIA.WHITNEY@SQUIREpb.COM PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MIKA FORSSELL and VELI-MATTI TETTINEN Appeal2015-002059 Application 12/993,862 Technology Center 2400 Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and HUNG H. BUI, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2015-002059 Application 12/993,862 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 56-79. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. The invention relates to "network discovery and selection in an environment of heterogeneous networks" (Spec. 1: 11-12). Claim 56, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 56. A method comprising: sending a network discovery request to a network element; receiving a network discovery message comprising information on discovered networks from said network element; receiving communication settings for at least one of the discovered networks from said network element; and configuring m accordance with the received communication settings for accessing at least one of the discovered networks, wherein the communication settings comprise network settings and service settings of the at least one of the discovered networks. REFERENCE Kenichi US 2006/0187858 Al Aug.24,2006 2 Appeal2015-002059 Application 12/993,862 REJECTION The Examiner made the following rejection: Claims 56-79 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C Â§102(b) as being anticipated by Kenichi. ANALYSIS Appellants contend: Kenichi does not disclose or suggest receiving or providing communication settings that include network settings and service settings of the at least one of the discovered networks, or configuring in accordance with those received communication settings. The detected MAC address (or IP address) described in Kenichi does not correspond to the claimed communication settings which include network settings and service settings of at least one of the discovered networks. (App. Br. 10). We disagree with Appellants. Kenichi discloses handoff mechanisms for a mobile device such as "secure pre-authentication" to "reduce delay and transient data loss in real- time secure roaming/handoff either between the same types or between heterogeneous access networks" (Kenichi, i-f 50). Secure pre-authentication requires the mobile device to "discover the parameters of various network elements in the target network ahead of time so that the mobile can communicate with these network elements to establish proactive security associations" (id.). Specifically, as Kenichi' s mobile device moves from one network to another, it passively listens to several beacons from the neighboring APs [access points]. These beacons of the APs contain the MAC addresses of the APs in the neighboring networks. The mobile 3 Appeal2015-002059 Application 12/993,862 uses the MAC address of the access point as the identifier to discover the network elements in the neighboring access networks. This is achieved by using an application layer protocol such as SOAP and HTTP that interacts with the AIS server to determine the IP addresses of the network elements that the mobile would usually interact after it moves to one of the neighboring access networks or the target access network. (Kenichi, i-f 242). In addition to learning the IP addresses of network elements in neighboring networks, Kenichi discloses discovered network information can include "any information that a mobile uses to access networks." Kenichi continues: "Such information includes, for example, .. . a security type (e.g., 'WPA' or 'PANA and IPsec') supported by an access point, a layer-3 type (e.g., 'IPv4 only' or 'IPv4/v6 dual stack') ... " (Kenichi, i-f 82). We find the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim 1 limitation "communication settings comprise network settings and service settings of the at least one of the discovered networks" reads on Kenichi' s discovered information including IP addresses of network elements (i.e., "network settings") and security type and layer-3 type (i.e., "service settings") (see Ans. 4--6). Appellants' argument that Kenichi's mobile device simply listens passively for AP beacons to obtain MAC addresses (App. Br. 10) is not persuasive. Although the mobile device does indeed listen to "beacons of the APs [which] contain the MAC addresses of the APs in the neighboring networks," the mobile device then "uses the MAC addresses of the access point as the identifier to discover the network elements in the neighboring access networks" (Kenichi, i-f 242). Thus, Kenichi's does in fact send "a network discover request to a network element" to obtain communication 4 Appeal2015-002059 Application 12/993,862 settings, as recited in claim 1, as opposed to merely listening passively for the communication settings. Appellants' Reply Brief merely acknowledges Kenichi's teaching in paragraph 242 quoted above, but does not explain why this teaching fails to disclose the argued limitation (see Reply Br. 4--5). Rather, the Reply Brief proceeds to repeat verbatim the same arguments presented in the Appeal Brief (see App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 5---6), which we do not find persuasive. We are, therefore, not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 56. Although Appellants separately argue independent claims 62, 67, 73, 78, and 79, the arguments presented are the same as for claim 56 (see App. Br. 13-15, 17-20, 22-24, and 26-32), and are not persuasive for the reasons discussed above. Further, although Appellants also separately argue dependent claims 57---61, 63---66, 68-72, and 74--77, Appellants merely recite the language of each of these claims without specifically explaining why it distinguishes the claimed invention from Kenichi (see App. Br. 11-13, 15-17, 20-22, and 25-26). Thus, Appellants' arguments for dependent claims 57-61, 63---66, 68-72, and 74--77, are also not persuasive. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 56-79 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(b). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 56-79 is affirmed. 5 Appeal2015-002059 Application 12/993,862 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 6