Ex Parte Horn et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 23, 2018

14158915 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/158,915 01/20/2014
15055 7590 03/27/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gavin Bernard HORN
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.
131003US 5265
EXAMINER
ONAMUTI, GBEMILEKE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2018 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GA VIN BERNARD HORN,
GERARDO GIARETTA, and ARNAUD MEYLAN
Appeal2017-008773
Application 14/158,915 1
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, IRVINE. BRANCH, and
KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-23, 25, 26, 28-51, and 53-56, which are all of the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
Technology
The application relates to "confirming identity of a user equipment
(UE) registered in both a wireless local area network (WLAN) and [wide
area wireless network] WW AN. Spec. Abstract.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
Appeal2017-008773
Application 14/158,915
Illustrative Claim
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
1. A method for secure wireless communications by a first
base station, comprising:
establishing communications with a first user equipment
(UE), wherein the first UE is identified by a first set of one or
more identifiers in a wide area wireless network (WW AN) and
by a second set of one or more identifiers in a wide local area
network (WLAN), wherein the establishing comprises providing
the first UE with an indication of one of the first or second set of
one or more identifiers;
receiving an indication of the other one of the first or
second set of one or more identifiers; and
determining, based on the first set of one or more
identifiers and the second set of one or more identifiers, that a
UE connected to the WW AN and WLAN is the first UE.
Rejections
Claims 1, 2, 4--7, 11-22, 25, 26, 30-40, 42-50, and 53-56 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of
Mildh (US 2014/0051393 Al; published Feb. 20, 2014) and Makhlouf (US
2014/0112320 Al; published Apr. 24, 2014). Ans. 2-26.
Claims 8-10, 28, and 29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Mildh, Makhlouf, and Gopalakrishnan
(US 2013/0267229 Al; published Oct. 10, 2013). Ans. 26-29.
Claims 3, 23, 41, and 51 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combination of Mildh, Makhlouf, and Jain
(US 2007/0211675 Al; published Sept. 13, 2007). Ans. 29-31.
2
Appeal2017-008773
Application 14/158,915
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part,
establishing communications with a first user equipment (UE),
wherein the first UE is identified by a first set of one or more
identifiers in a wide area wireless network (WW AN) and by a
second set of one or more identifiers in a wide local area network
(WLAN), wherein the establishing comprises providing the first
UE with an indication of one of the first or second set of one or
more identifiers.
The Examiner finds "Mildh does not expressly disclose wherein the
establishing comprises providing the first UE with an indication of one of
the first or second set of one or more identifiers." Ans. 4. The Examiner
finds Makhlouf discloses that which is missing from Mildh "so as to
mitigate interference between transceivers of different air interfaces
operating on nearby, but non- overlapping frequency bands." Id. at 5 (citing
Makhloufi-fi-f 14 and 40); see also Ans. 31-32 (citing Makhloufi-fi-139 and
40).
Appellants argue as follows:
Makhlouf describes that a portable communication device
receives an identifier, such as an SSID or MAC of the WLAN
AP, and that the portable communication device can cross
reference the received identifier of the WLAN AP with a list of
stored identifiers of WLAN APs that are associated with WW AN
devices operating nearby. Thus, based on the WLAN AP
identifier, the portable communication device can invoke the
interference mitigation measures. Thus, the "identifier"
provided by the WLAN AP (base station) does not identify the
UE in WLAN or WW AN-instead, the identifier identifies the
WLAN AP itself.
Although Makhlouf describes the WLAN AP broadcast or
transmits an identifier, as described above, the identifier is not an
3
Appeal2017-008773
Application 14/158,915
identifier of a UE, but the identifier of the WLAN AP. Therefore,
the Makhlouf fails to disclose or suggest ''providing the first UE
with an indication of one of the first or second set of identifiers
[that identifies the UE in a WW AN or WLAN]".
Reply Br. 3--4 (citing Makhloufi-fi-121, 23, 36, 39, and 40).
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. In particular, we agree
that Makhlouf discloses an access point providing its identifier to a wireless
device (i-f 39) and a wireless device providing its identifier to an access point
(i-f 40), but we do not find where a wireless device is provided an identifier
useable to identify it (i.e., the wireless device), as Appellants argue. App.
Br. 12-13; Reply Br. 2--4.
Moreover, we do not find an adequate explanation as to how the
teachings of Makhlouf, together with the knowledge generally available to a
person of ordinary skill in the art, would have put the artisan in possession of
"providing the first UE with an indication of one of the first or second set of
one or more identifiers" usable to identify the UE. See KSR Int 'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (an obviousness analysis "need not
seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the
challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative
steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ"); see generally
Ans. 2-5, 31-32.
Accordingly, on this record, we do not sustain the Examiner's
rejection ofclaim 1, and claims 2-23, 25, 26, 28-51, and 53-56, which are
improperly rejected for similar reasons.
4
Appeal2017-008773
Application 14/158,915
DECISION
For the reasons above, we reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting
claims 1-23, 25, 26, 28-51, and 53-56.
REVERSED
5