Ex Parte Montemurro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 22, 2016

13045658 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/045,658 03/11/2011
82313 7590 06/24/2016
Conley Rose - BlackBerry Files
Attn: J. Robert Brown
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Michael Peter Montemurro
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.
38102-US-PAT
(4214-58501)
CONFIRMATION NO.
3351
EXAMINER
SALAD,ABDULLAHIELMI
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2456
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2016 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MICHAEL PETER MONTEMURRO and STEPHEN McCANN
Appeal2014-008807
Application 13/045,658
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
BUI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's Final Office Action rejecting claims 1-27, which constitute all
the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.2
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Research in Motion
Limited. Br. 2.
2 Our Decision refers to Appellants' Appeal Brief filed February 10, 2014
("Br."); Examiner's Answer mailed June 5, 2014 ("Ans."); Final Office
Action mailed May 15, 2013 ("Final Act."); and original Specification filed
March 11, 2011 ("Spec.").
Appeal2014-008807
Application 13/045,658
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
According to Appellants, management frames are the foundation of
network management traffic in a wireless local area network (WLAN).
Current IEEE 802.11 standards dictate that, in any access point (AP) or non-
AP station (ST A), management frames are to be handled via the enhanced
distributed channel access (EDCA) queue of highest priority. Spec. i-f 4.
Appellants' invention seeks to prioritize management frames, as
opposed to other types of frames (e.g., signaling frames or content frames),
and provides implementation of prioritization schemes that define various
access categories of different management frames, where each of the access
categories is associated with a respective prioritization used for transmission
of management frames. Id. i-f 21; Abstract.
Claims 1, 11, 16, and 21 are independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of
Appellants' invention, as reproduced below:
1. A method for a wireless station, the method comprising:
receiving, from an access point, an extended capabilities
element having an indication of support of prioritization of
management frames;
receiving, from the access point, a management frame
quality of service (MFQ) policy that defines an access category
used for transmitting management frames, the management
frames being distinct from signaling frames and content frames;
transmitting a policy configuration request to request a
change to the MFQ policy.
Br. 7 (Claims App'x.) (disputed limitations in italics).
Examiner's Rejection
(1) Claims 1-5, 11-14, 16-24, and 26-27 stand rejected under
2
Appeal2014-008807
Application 13/045,658
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lai, European Patent
Application EP 1 919 154 Al; published May 7, 2008 and Sood, U.S.
Publication No. 2011/0103232 Al; May 5, 2011. Ans. 2--4.
(2) Claims 6-10, 15, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lai, Sood, and Amann, U.S. Publication
No. 2007/0230389 Al; October 4, 2007. Ans. 4---6.
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claims 1, 11, 16, and 21, the Examiner
finds Lai discloses a prioritization scheme to prioritize the transmission of
signaling frames in a QoS (quality-of-service) system between a mobile
station (STA) and an access point (AP), shown in Figures 1-3, including the
disputed limitations: (1) receiving, from an access point (AP), a QoS policy
that defines an access category used for transmitting these frames, and (2)
transmitting a request to change the QoS. Ans. 2-3 (citing Lai i-fi-14--5, 16-
17, 51-52).
The Examiner acknowledges Lai' s prioritization scheme is based on
"signaling frames" and not Appellants' claimed "management frames." Id.
However, the Examiner relies on Sood for teaching prioritization of
Appellants' claimed "management frames" that are "distinct from signaling
frames and content frames" as disclosed by Lai to support the conclusion of
obviousness. Id. at 3 (citing Sood i-fi-150, 53 "a method of prioritizing a
management frame ... According to one example embodiment, a receiving
station may receive a prioritized management frame for example, a beacon
and/or a probe response from the AP, if desired. The receiving station may
3
Appeal2014-008807
Application 13/045,658
configure prioritized management frames (PMF) as enabled and may
configure the prioritized management frames security.")
Appellants dispute the Examiner's factual findings regarding Lai and
Sood. In particular, Appellants argue "Lai does not relate to management
frames" and only teaches "prioritization of other frames (e.g., signaling
frames or content frames)" without any "indication of support of
prioritization of management frames where the management frames are
distinct from signaling frames and content frames as claimed." Br. 5 (citing
Lai i-fi-151-52); see also Reply Br. 1-2. According to Appellants, Lai simply
discusses assigning priority access categories to signaling frames and
content frames. Br. 4.
Appellants also argue neither Lai nor Sood teaches the transmission of
an MFQ policy. Br. 5-6; Reply Br. 3. According to Appellants, Sood
relates to configuration management frame priority and security type. Br. 5
(citing Sood's Abstract); Reply Br. 3. However, Appellants argue such a
management frame priority configuration is handled by a mobile device and
is not based on receipt of any policy as claimed. Id.
We do not find Appellants' arguments persuasive. Rather, we find
the Examiner has provided a comprehensive response to Appellants'
arguments supported by a preponderance of evidence. Ans. 6-8. As such,
we adopt the Examiner's findings and explanations provided therein. Id.
For additional emphasis, we note that one cannot show non-obviousness by
attacking references individually where the rejection is based on
combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
The test of obviousness is what the combined teachings would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Id. at 425. In addition to the
4
Appeal2014-008807
Application 13/045,658
combined teachings of Lai and Sood, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill
in the art, and the nature of the problem to be solved as a whole would also
aid those skilled in the art to combine Lai and Sood in the manner to arrive
at Appellants' claims 1, 11, 16, and 21. Id. at 425.
As correctly explained by the Examiner, Lai is not cited for disclosing
prioritization of "management frames"; rather, Sood is relied upon for
teaching a priority scheme of prioritizing "management frames." Ans. 7.
"For example, Sood discloses 'MS 110 may negotiate a priority
level of a management frame with AP 120 and may determine
the management frame priority class, for example, Roaming
Management Frames class, Emergency Services Management
Frame class, Network Management Frames class, Diagnostics
Management Class, and Event Reporting Management Frame
class, if desired. MS 110 may maintain a separate priority queue
for each management frame priority class. MS 110 may assign a
data rate and a number of retries based on the priority class.'
Furthermore, in par. [0016] Sood discloses "AP 120 may
advertise its support for a prioritized management frame for
example, in the IEEE 802.11 Extended Capabilities Information
Element. Based on this policy, AP 120 may mandate
prioritization or not."
Id. at 7-8.
Contrary to Appellants' arguments, Lai specifically discloses:
[0005] In an Infrastructure network, a WMM-enabled AP
and a WMM-enabled STA negotiate WMM QoS parameters on
association and re-association. Following an association, the AP
may advertise changes to QoS parameters at any time in beacon
frames.
[0006] A WMM-enabled AP includes either a WMM
Information Element (IE) or a WMM Parameter Element (PE) in
every beacon it transmits. A WMM IE includes a QoS
information field and indicates capability or use of WMM
5
Appeal2014-008807
Application 13/045,658
according to context, and is described in section 2.2.1 of WMM
specifications 1.1. A WMM PE contains a QoS information field
and EDCA parameter records for each of the four access
categories and is described in section 2.2.2 of WMM
specifications 1.1.
[0007] A WMM-enabled STA determines the WMM
capability of an AP with which it wishes to associate before
transmitting an association request to it. It may do this either
passively, by receiving a beacon frame, or actively, by
transmitting a probe request to it. The STA then sends an
association request to the AP and includes a WMM IE in the
association request. On receipt of an association request, the AP
responds by transmitting an association response that includes a
WMMPE.
[0008] WMM leaves the network owner free to choose the
most appropriate network-wide policy and to decide which
access categories have priority. For instance, a network owner
may prefer to give priority to video streaming over voice. A
customized policy for the access categories can be set through an
interface in which default priority levels for access categories can
be modified.
Lai i-fi-1 5-8 (emphases added).
In other words, Lai teaches (1) receiving, from an access point (AP), a
policy that defines an access category used for transmitting these frames,
and (2) transmitting a request to change the QoS. However, Lai's policy is
described as a customized policy instead of Appellants' designated
"management frame quality of service (MFQ) policy." See Lai i18.
Nevertheless, once the prioritization scheme of Sood is incorporated into
Lai' s QoS system, Lai' s customized policy can be considered as Appellants'
designated "management frame quality of service (MFQ) policy" because
the quality of service (QoS) is now based on the "management frames."
6
Appeal2014-008807
Application 13/045,658
For the reasons set forth above, Appellants have not demonstrated the
Examiner erred. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness
rejection of claims 1, 11, 16, and 21 and their respective dependent claims
2-10, 12-15, 17-20, and 22-27, which Appellants do not argue separately.
Br. 6.
CONCLUSION
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
DECISION
As such, we AFFIRM the Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-27.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
7