Ex Parte KIM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 18, 2018

14195971 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 18, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/195,971 03/04/2014
89980 7590 12/20/2018
NSIPLAW
P.O. Box 65745
Washington, DC 20035
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jae-Hoon KIM
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.
012052.0820Cl 1059
EXAMINER
HENNING, MATTHEW T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2491
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/20/2018 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):
pto@nsiplaw.com
pto.nsip@gmail.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAE-HOON KIM, JUNG-HO KIM, JI HOON LEE,
YOUN SUNG ROH, and YOUNG GON CHOI
Appeal2017-002015
Application 14/195,971
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2017-002015
Application 14/195,971
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-18, which are all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Representative Claim
1. A method, executed by an old node, for performing re-
association according to handover of a mobile node in a wireless mesh
network, the method comprising:
receiving, from a new node, a mesh re-association request
message comprising information on the moved mobile node and a
request for establishment of a route in the wireless mesh network from
the new node to the old node for packets to be transmitted from a
counterpart mobile node to the moved mobile node, the counterpart
mobile node being a node communicating with the moved mobile
node through the old node before the moved mobile node is moved;
and
establishing, in response to the mesh re-association request
message, a new data transmission route between the old node and the
new node for packets to be transmitted to the moved mobile node
from the counterpart mobile node, based on the information on the
moved mobile node.
Jones
Liu
Khalil
Prior Art
US 7,356,001 Bl
US 2008/0170550 Al
US 7,590,843 B 1
Examiner's Rejections
Apr. 8, 2008
July 1 7, 2008
Sept. 15, 2009
Claims 1-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Khalil, Jones, and Liu.
2
Appeal2017-002015
Application 14/195,971
ANALYSIS
We affirm for the reasons given by the Examiner in the Non-Final
Action and Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
In the Non-Final Action, the Examiner took Official notice that it was
well known "for home agents to receive and forward communications
addressed to a mobile node, to the mobile node, through foreign agents."
Non-Final Act. 4. Appellants challenged the Official notice in the Appeal
Brief, arguing that it is not appropriate for the Examiner to take Official
Notice without citing a prior art reference. App. Br. 12-13. In the Answer,
the Examiner supported the Official notice by citing "Mobile IP Technology
and Applications," Stefan Raab et al., Cisco Press, May 11, 2005, and
explained how Raab teaches "packets to be transmitted from a counterpart
mobile node to the moved mobile node, the counterpart mobile node being a
node communicating with the moved mobile node through the old node" as
claimed. Ans. 3---6 ( citing chapter 2 of Raab).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred by not citing Raab earlier
in the prosecution. Reply Br. 3. 1 Appellants also contend that Raab does
not teach details disclosed in the Application, such as mitigating probe
delay, authentication delay, and re-association delay. Reply Br. 3--4.
However, such details are not recited in claim 1. Further, Appellants'
Specification discloses embodiments that include at least one such delay.
1 The Board normally only considers matters affecting the merits of the
invention, i.e., rejections of claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.31(c) (2011).
Matters not affecting the merits of the invention, such as whether the
Examiner properly used Official notice, are to be raised by petition to the
Director. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 1.181-183; Manual of Patent Examining
Procedure (MPEP) §§ 1002, 1207.03 (IV) (8th Ed., Rev. 8, July 2010); In re
Berger, 279 F.3d 975, 984 (Fed. Cir. 2002).
3
Appeal2017-002015
Application 14/195,971
See, for example, Spec. ,r,r 40-41. Also, Appellants' contention regarding
disclosed details does not persuasively address the Examiner's findings
regarding the claim limitations taught by chapter 2 of Raab.
Appellants also contend that chapter 3 of Raab, which was not cited
by the Examiner, teaches against mobile node and foreign agent
authentication. Reply Br. 4--5. However, claim 1 does not recite mobile
authentication, foreign agent authentication, nor any other authentication.
Further, Appellants' contention regarding chapter 3 of Raab does not
persuasively address the Examiner's mapping of limitations recited in claim
1 to the teachings found in chapter 2 of Raab.
Appellants further argue the references do not teach "establishing, in
response to the mesh re-association request message, a new data
transmission route between the old node and the new node for packets to be
transmitted to the moved mobile node from the counterpart mobile node,
based on the information on the moved mobile node," as recited in claim 1.
App. Br. 13-17. The Examiner relies on Jones and Liu to teach or suggest
this limitation. Non-Final Act. 4--5 ( citing Jones col. 65:25-55, Liu ,r,r 34--
3 8). Appellants provide a description of the disclosure in each of Khalil,
Jones, and Liu and then contend "Jones and Liu do not remedy the noted
deficiencies in Khalil." App. Br. 15-17. However, merely presenting the
claim limitation and a description of the reference cannot alone satisfy
Appellants' burden to meaningfully compare the claims against the prior art.
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv) ("A statement which merely points out what a
claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of
the claim."); In re Baxter Travenol Labs, 952 F.2d 388,391 (Fed. Cir. 1991)
("It is not the function of this court to examine the claims in greater detail
4
Appeal2017-002015
Application 14/195,971
than argued by an appellant, looking for nonobvious distinctions over the
prior art."). Accordingly, Appellants' argument is not persuasive.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5