Ex Parte Lohtia et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 19, 2012

11229390 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 19, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ANIT LOHTIA, YUQIANG TANG, and MIROSLAV BUDIC
____________________

Appeal 2010-003652
Application 11/229,390
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, THU A. DANG,
and JAMES R. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-003652
Application 11/229,390

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-13, 15-20, 22, and 24 (App. Br. 1). Claims 3, 4, 7, 14,
21, and 23 are cancelled (id.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a system and method for detecting
the presence of a Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) within a cell
segment and sending notice to an authorized mobile station of its presence;
wherein, a private identifier of the wireless local area network in the cell
segment is sent to the mobile station in the cell segment to enable hand-off
to the wireless local area network (Abstract; Spec. ¶ [0024]).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for use in a wireless communications
network, comprising:

determining presence of a plurality of wireless local area
networks in a particular cell segment;

determining which of the plurality of wireless local area
networks a mobile station in the particular cell segment is
authorized to use; and

sending a neighbor list to the mobile station in the
particular cell segment to enable the mobile station to hand off
to one or more of the wireless local area networks the mobile
station is authorized to use, wherein the neighbor list contains
one or more identifiers of the one or more wireless local area
Appeal 2010-003652
Application 11/229,390

3
networks the mobile station is authorized to use, and identifiers
of cell segments neighboring the particular cell segment.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Reynolds US 2003/0125028 Al Jul. 03, 2003
Shaheen US 2004/0203792 Al Oct. 14, 2004
Ozluturk US 2005/0107085 Al May 19, 2005
Hinman US 2006/0153122 Al Jul. 13, 2006
(filed Jan. 13, 2005)

Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shaheen in view of Ozluturk and Reynolds.
Claims 12, 15, 16, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Shaheen in view of Hinman.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shaheen in view of Hinman and Reynolds.
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shaheen in view of Ozluturk and Hinman.
Claim 22 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Shaheen in view of Ozluturk, Reynolds and Hinman.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Shaheen, Ozluturk, and Reynolds teaches or
would have suggested:
Appeal 2010-003652
Application 11/229,390

4
1. “sending a neighbor list to the mobile station in the particular cell
segment to enable the mobile station to hand off to one or more of the
wireless local area networks the mobile station is authorized to use, wherein
the neighbor list contains one or more identifiers of the one or more wireless
local area networks the mobile station is authorized to use, and identifiers of
cell segments neighboring the particular cell segment” (claim 1, emphasis
added); and
2. “store a mapping between a private identifier and a service set
identifier (SSID) of the wireless local area network” (claim 12, emphasis
added).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Shaheen
1. Shaheen discloses a Universal Mobile Telecommunication
Services (UMTS) system that broadcasts a list of Wireless WLANs available
within the cell in which the User Equipment (UE) 10 is located (Fig. 1, steps
S1 and S2; ¶ [0018]).
Reynolds
2. Reynolds discloses a method of controlling handover of a
mobile station to a different radio access technology while the mobile
station is conducting a communications session; wherein, the handover is
tested for certain requirements as specified by pre-defined network policies,
such as one that grants priority to certain types of users or calls (¶¶ [0004]-
[0007] and [0017]-[0022]).

Appeal 2010-003652
Application 11/229,390

5
Hinman
3. Hinman discloses that, when a Wireless Access Point (WAP)
on a public network provides a SSID broadcast, it enables the software
within a wireless device that discovers the SSID broadcast to provide a list
of all access points within its range to the user or to automatically connect
with an available access point by setting its own SSID to match (since all
devices on a network must use the same SSID in order to establish
communications) (¶ [0004]).
4. When the wireless device 702 is configured to a first identifier
SSID1 associated with the public LAN 704, the WAP 701 will grant the
wireless device 702 access to the public LAN 704 but deny access to the
private LAN 705 associated with a second identifier SSID2 (Fig. 7; ¶
[0033]). Rather, the wireless device 702 may be indirectly granted access to
the private LAN 705 through a communication link 706 coupled between
public LAN 704 and private LAN 705 (Fig. 7; ¶ [0033]). In the alternative,
the wireless device 703 may be configured to the second identifier SSID2
associated with the private LAN 704 (¶ [0034]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, and 8-11
Appellants contend that “[t]here is absolutely nothing [in the recited
portions of Reynolds] to even remotely hint at determining which of a
plurality of wireless local area networks (in a particular cell segment) a
mobile station is authorized to use” because “controlling handover [as
disclosed in Reynolds] in accordance with the requirement and the network
policy … is different from determining which of the wireless local area
Appeal 2010-003652
Application 11/229,390

6
networks within a particular cell segment a mobile station is authorized to
use” (App. Br. 6).
However, the Examiner finds that “Reynolds states that during the
determination of the handoff, only mobile stations authorized to access those
networks will be allowed” since Reynolds discloses “a test for handover that
meets particular requirements according to network policies” (Ans. 14). The
Examiner notes that Reynolds discloses a certain policy that designates
“during the test/determination, if a user does not possess a particular priority,
the user is not authorized to use the higher quality resources/wireless local
area network” (id.).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellants.
Though we agree with the Examiner that Shaheen discloses a UMTS system
that broadcasts a list of WLANs available within the cell to the UEs located
within the cell (FF 1) and that Reynolds discloses a method of controlling
handover of a mobile station based upon a certain requirements that grants
priority to certain types of users or calls (FF 2), we cannot find any
suggestion of “sending a neighbor list … [that] contains one or more
identifiers of the one or more wireless local area networks the mobile station
is authorized to use,” as required by claim 1 in the sections of Shaheen and
Reynolds referenced by the Examiner. That is, the recited portion of
Shaheen teaches that a list of WLANs includes all available WLANs
regardless of whether the UE is authorized to access the WLAN or not (FF
1), and the recited portion of Reynolds merely teaches that mobile stations
users may be granted priority for a handover to a different radio access
technology (FF 2). We find that the granting of priority, as disclosed in
Reynolds, is not synonymous with the sending of a list of WLANs that a
Appeal 2010-003652
Application 11/229,390

7
mobile station is authorized to use, much less determining the authorization
of use for mobile stations. Therefore, the combined teachings of Shaheen
and Reynolds are silent as to sending a list of WLANs which the mobile
station is authorized to use.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shaheen in view of
Ozluturk and Reynolds. Similarly, claims 2, 5, 6, and 8-11 (depending from
claim 1) stand with claim 1.
Claims 12, 15, 16, and 24
Appellants contend that “Hinman provides absolutely no hint of
storing a mapping between a private identifier and an SSID of a wireless
local area network” (App. Br. 7); rather, “all Hinman discloses is that
different local area networks are assigned different SSIDs” (App. Br. 8).
However, the Examiner finds that, since Hinman discloses that “[t]he
SSID broadcast allows a wireless adapter’s client manager program or an
operating system’s built-in wireless software … to automatically connect
with an available access point by setting its own SSID to match’” (Ans. 15),
“mapping” is read broadly to read upon Hinman’s “matching” (id.).
After reviewing the record on appeal, we agree with Appellants.
Though we agree with the Examiner that Hinman discloses that, when a
WAP on a public network provides a SSID broadcast, it enables the software
within a wireless device that discovers the SSID broadcast to automatically
connect with an available access point by setting its own SSID to match the
SSID of the network (FF 3), we cannot find any suggestion of a mapping
between the second identifier associated with the private LAN and the first
identifier associated with the public LAN. That is, the recited portions of
Appeal 2010-003652
Application 11/229,390

8
Hinman disclose that the wireless device can set its identifier to be
configured to either a first identifier of a public LAN or a second identifier
of a private LAN (FF 3 and 4), and not that a mapping exists between the
first and second identifier.
Accordingly, we find that Appellants have shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Shaheen in view of
Ozluturk and Reynolds. Similarly, claims 15, 16, and 24 (depending from
claim 12) stand with claim 12.
Claims 13, 17-20, and 22
As noted supra, we reversed the rejection of claims 1 and 12 from
which claims 13 and 22 respectively depend. Independent claim 17, having
similar claim language to that of claim 12, and claims 18-20 (depending
from claim 17) stand with claim 12.
The Examiner has not identified how Reynolds cures the noted
deficiencies of Hinman. As such, we also reverse the rejection of claim 13
over Shaheen in view of Hinman and Reynolds and the rejection of claim 22
Shaheen in view of Ozluturk, Reynolds and Hinman. Additionally, the
Examiner has not identified how Ozluturk cures the noted deficiencies of
Shaheen and Hinman. As such, we also reverse the rejection of claims 17-
20 over Shaheen in view of Ozluturk and Hinman.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 8-13, 15-20, 22, and 24
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.

Appeal 2010-003652
Application 11/229,390

9

REVERSED

peb