Ex Parte Kneckt et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 6, 2018

12287644 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 6, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/287,644 10/10/2008
10948 7590 12/10/2018
Harrington & Smith, Attorneys At Law, LLC
4 Research Drive, Suite 202
Shelton, CT 06484
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Jarkko Kneckt
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.
859.0140.Ul(US) 9706
EXAMINER
ANWAR, MOHAMMAD S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/10/2018 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):
USPTO@hspatent.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 JARKKO KNECKT, JANNE MARIN, and MIKA KASSLIN
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/2 87,644
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, MIRIAM L. QUINN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
Opinion of the Board filed by Administrative Patent Judge AMUNDSON.
Opinion Dissenting filed by Administrative Patent Judge QUINN.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1---6, 9--13, 16-21, 24--26, 29--32, 34--38, 40, and 41. 2
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Nokia Technologies Oy.
App. Br. 2.
2 Claims 1--41 are pending. The Examiner objects to but does not reject
claims 7, 8, 14, 15, 22, 23, 27, 28, 33, and 39. Final Act. 1.
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/287 ,644
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Invention
According to the Specification, the invention "relate[ s] generally to
wireless communication systems, methods, devices and computer program
products and, more specifically, relate[ s] to power management techniques
therefore." Spec. ,r 2. 3 A "device in a wireless network" may have a
"plurality of power saving modes," and if "[i]t is determined that the device
is using one of the power saving modes on a peer-specific link, ... a
message is transmitted to the peer over the link that includes an indication of
the state." Id. Abstract. The Specification notes that "embodiments of the
invention provide improved power management techniques for use, e.g., in
WLAN ad hoc networks, WLAN mesh networks or other wireless
networks." Id. ,r 38.
Exemplary Claim
Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as
follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining that a device in a wireless network is
concurrently operating in a first power management mode on a
peer-specific link and in a second power management mode,
different from the first power management mode, on another
link, wherein during the concurrent operation, the device is able
to transmit at least a first beacon in the first power management
mode on the peer-specific link and to transmit at least a second
3 This decision uses the following abbreviations: "Spec." for the
Specification, filed October 10, 2008; "Final Act." for the Final Office
Action, mailed March 24, 2017; "App. Br." for the Appeal Brief, filed
August 28, 2017; "Ans." for the Examiner's Answer, mailed October 18,
2017; and "Reply Br." for the Reply Brief, filed December 15, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/287 ,644
beacon in the second power management mode on the other
link; and
transmitting a message to another device over the peer-
specific link, comprising an indication that the device is using
the first power management mode on the peer-specific link.
App. Br. 19 (Claims App.).
The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal
As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following
prior art:
Odman
Romans
Jan
Lu et al. ("Lu")
Conner et al. ("Conner")
Maki
US 2003/0137993 Al
US 6,665,520 B2
US 2007/0104145 Al
US 7,224,704 B2
US 7,702,352 B2
US 7,912,943 B2
The Rejections on Appeal
July 24, 2003
Dec. 16, 2003
May 10, 2007
May 29, 2007
Apr. 20, 2010
(filed May 13, 2005)
Mar. 22, 2011
(filed Sept. 22, 2006)
Claims 1--4, 9, 10, 16-19, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Jan, Romans, and Odman. Final Act. 4--9;
App. Br. 2.
Claims 5 and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Jan, Romans, Odman, and Lu. Final Act. 9--10; App.
Br. 3.
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Jan, Romans, Odman, Lu, and Maki. Final Act. 10-11; App. Br. 3.
Claims 11-13, 25, 26, 29--31, 34--37, 40, and4I stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Jan, Romans, Odman, and Conner.
Final Act. 11-16; App. Br. 3.
3
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/287 ,644
Claims 32 and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Jan, Romans, Odman, Conner, and Lu. Final Act. 16-17;
App. Br. 3.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Jan, Romans, Odman, Lu, and Maki. Final Act. 17; App. Br. 3.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1---6, 9--13, 16-21, 24--26,
29--32, 34--38, 40, and 41 in light of Appellants' arguments that the
Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained
below, we concur with Appellants' contention that the Examiner erred in
finding that the cited portions of Jan teach or suggest the beacon-
transmission limitations in the independent claims.
The§ 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1-4, 9, 10, 16-19, and 24
Appellants argue that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent
claims 1 and 16 because Jan does not teach or suggest the following
limitation in each claim: "wherein during the concurrent operation, the
device is able to transmit at least a first beacon in the first power
management mode on the peer-specific link and to transmit at least a second
beacon in the second power management mode on the other link." See App.
Br. 9--12; Reply Br. 5-9. Specifically, Appellants assert that (1) "Jan
teaches that a device may be 'awake' or 'suspended' at different times" and
(2) the Examiner relies on those modes for "the concurrent capability to
operate in first and second power management modes." App. Br. 11; Reply
Br. 8. Appellants then contend that in a device according to Jan "[i]f the
second link is to be used for transmission, the first link is suspended, and if
the first link is to be used for transmission, the second link is suspended."
4
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/287 ,644
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 8. Appellants also contend that "Jan does not
anywhere teach a capability to transmit a beacon in [a] suspended mode."
App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 8. Appellants "argue[], and reiterate, that a
suspended link cannot be used for transmission." App. Br. 9.
The Examiner finds that "Jan teaches 1) simultaneously establishing
plurality of links to the plurality of wireless stations 2) maintain first link
and second link simultaneously 3) power saving mode or suspended mode
for a link and 4) wake-up or active mode for a link." Ans. 3 (citing Jan
,r,r 11, 34--3 6, Abstract, Fig. 4 ); see Final Act. 4--7. The Examiner also finds
that Jan teaches "transmitting [a] power saving mode signal on one link and
[a] wake-up mode signal on the other link." Ans. 3.
Based on the record before us, 4 we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Jan teach
or suggest the disputed limitation in claims 1 and 16. The Examiner fails to
address Appellants' argument "that a suspended link cannot be used for
transmission." See App. Br. 9; Ans. 3. Further, the Examiner fails to
4 Although we are persuaded by Appellants' argument as to the combination
of Jan, Romans, and Odman, we note that Appellants explicitly reference the
IEEE P802.1 lsâ„¢/Dl.07, Draft STANDARD as being "[o]ne publication of
interest to the ensuing description." Spec. ,r 4. This publication at section
7.3.2.60 discusses a "Mesh Neighbor List element" where the "element is
used by an MP [ mesh point] to advertise its peer MPs and their Power
Management Mode." We conclude section 7.3.2.60 teaches, "a device in a
wireless network is concurrently operating in a first power management
mode on a peer-specific link and in a second power management mode,
different from the first power management mode, on another link." Further,
section 1 lA.11.3-12.3 discuss MPs exchange of beacons and power
management. We recommend that the Examiner consider whether this IEEE
publication in combination with the cited references renders obvious claims
1--4, 9, 10, 16-19, and 24.
5
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/287 ,644
provide any analysis or technical reasoning explaining how a device in a
power saving mode (suspended mode) can transmit a beacon on a link to
another device, as required by claims 1 and 16. See Final Act. 4--7; Ans. 3.
Thus, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 16.
Claims 2--4, 9, and 10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1, and
claims 17-19 and 24 depend directly or indirectly from claim 16. For the
reasons discussed regarding claims 1 and 16, we do not sustain the§ 103(a)
rejection of these dependent claims.
The§ 103(a) Rejections of 5, 6, 11-13,
20, 21, 25, 26, 29-32, 34-38, 40, and 41
Independent claims 29, 35, and 41 include beacon-transmission
limitations similar to the beacon-transmission limitation in claims 1 and 16.
App. Br. 25, 27, 29 (Claims App.). On this record, the Examiner has not
shown how the additionally cited Conner reference overcomes the
deficiency in Jan discussed above for the claims 1 and 16. See Final
Act. 13-15; Ans. 6. Hence, we do not sustain the§ 103(a) rejection of
claims 29, 35, and 41 and related dependent claims 11-13, 25, 26, 30, 31,
34, 36, 37, and 40.
As for dependent claims 5, 6, 20, 21, 32, and 38, on this record, the
Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited Lu and Maki references
overcome the deficiency in Jan discussed above for the independent claims.
See Final Act. 9-11, 16-17; Ans. 3--4, 6-7. Hence, we do not sustain the
§ 103(a) rejections of these dependent claims.
6
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/287 ,644
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1---6, 9--13,
16-21, 24--26, 29--32, 34--38, 40, and 41.
REVERSED
7
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/287 ,644
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JARKKO KNECKT, JANNE MARIN, and MIKA KASSLIN
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/287,644
Technology Center 2400
QUINN, Administrative Patent Judge, dissenting.
I dissent from the decision reversing the Examiner. The claim 1
limitation at issue requires a "concurrent operation" in which the device is in
two distinct power management modes for two respective links. In the
concurrent operation, the claim recites that "the device is able to transmit at
least a first beacon in the first power management mode on the peer-specific
link and to transmit at least a second beacon in the second power
management mode on the other link." Thus, the claim requires that while
the device maintains the two distinct power modes, the device is able to
transmit a beacon on each link. The "concurrence" that the claim requires is
not a concurrent transmission of beacons in two links. Rather, the claimed
"concurrence" is in maintaining two distinct power management modes.
I find that the Examiner showed that Jan teaches this limitation. The
Examiner found that Jan discloses a device that maintains two distinct links,
each with its own power management mode, and transmits a beacon for each
of the links in the respective mode. For instance, paragraph 35 of Jan
8
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/287 ,644
describes that the wireless communication device establishes the first link to
transmit and receive data, and that because of roaming, the device
establishes a second link. Appellants argue that Jan suspends the first link's
connection while the second link is awake, and, therefore, the device cannot
transmit the two beacons during the "concurrent operation," as the claim
requires. App. Br. 10-11. There are two problems with this argument.
First, the argument improperly focuses on the word "concurrent" as
requiring that there be two simultaneous transmissions, which the claim does
not require, as discussed above.
Second, the argument mischaracterizes Jan's disclosure of suspending
the connection. Jan states that, when roaming is detected, "the network
module of the wireless communication device transmits the first power-
saving mode signal to the first wireless station the device links to ( step
S417), and requests connection suspension." Jan ,r 35. This "suspension" is
not an absence of all transmissions. This is a pause in packet transmissions,
in order to establish the roaming link. But, after the two links are
established, Jan transmits a second power-saving mode signal to the second
wireless station, and "transmits the first wake-up mode signal to the first
wireless station." Jan ,r 36 (emphasis added). Thus, Jan teaches transmitting
a beacon during the power-saving mode of the first link, and transmits a
beacon during the awake mode of the second link. This disclosure belies
Appellants' argument that "Jan does not anywhere teach a capability to
transmit a beacon in suspended mode." The Examiner relied on these
paragraphs in rejecting claim 1 and specifically identified the second power-
saving mode signal and wake-up mode signal on the other link. Final Act. 5.
9
Appeal2018-001947
Application 12/287 ,644
I also find unpersuasive Appellants' argument that "suspended"
means sleep and that, therefore, Jan would not need awake periods. App.
Br. 11. Although Jan is not a model of clarity, it does describe using the
power-saving mode signal contrary to Appellants' characterization. Jan
states that the wireless communication device "utilizes the power-saving
mode signal 301 to transmit a request signal 302 to the wireless station
periodically." Jan ,r 31. It does this because Jan has modified the typical
wireless communication device to simulate a DHCP client module. Jan ,r 29
("The simulated DHCP client module can simultaneously handle a plurality
of allocated network addresses, such as two groups, while performing the
handover operation."). The Jan wireless communication device searches
periodically for available access points to determine roaming events. See id.
,r 31 (stating that the wireless communication device "searches for another
available wireless signal" in the meantime). Thus, Jan transmits beacons in
the power-saving mode on the first link, even though it suspends voice data
packet transmissions, because it needs to resume transmission of voice data
packets on the first link before switching over to the established second link
for roaming. Appellants' arguments conflate the distinction in Jan between
the voice data packet transmissions and transmitting the power-saving mode
signal.
Accordingly, I find none of Appellants' arguments persuasive, and I find
that the Examiner identified in Jan the teachings with sufficient clarity to put
Appellants on notice that the disputed subject matter of claim 1 is taught by
Jan. All of Appellants' arguments of the remaining pending claims hinge on
the claim- I argument discussed above, and, therefore, I would sustain the
Examiner's rejection of all claims.
10