Ex Parte Ponnuswamy

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 15, 2019

14755583 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
14/755,583
127473 7590
Invoke
30 Wall Street #800
8th Floor
FILING DATE
06/30/2015
04/17/2019
New York, NY 10005
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Subbu Ponnuswamy
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.
H00005NP 1851
EXAMINER
RENNER, BRANDON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2478
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/17/2019 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):
docketing@InvokeIP.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUBBU PONNUSWAMY
Appeal2018-007013 1
Application 14/755,583
Technology Center 2400
Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM.
1 The listed real party in interest is KodaCloud, Inc. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2018-007013
Application 14/755,583
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to cooperative scanning of wireless
devices to obtain information about a wireless environment. Spec. ,r 2.
Claims 1-23 are pending; claims 1, 22, and 23 are independent. App. Br. 1-
2. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference:
1. A non-transitory computer readable medium comprising
instructions which, when executed by one or more hardware
processors, causes performance of operations comprising:
identifying a wireless environment comprising a plurality
of wireless devices;
aggregating data corresponding to a set of wireless
signals detected by one or more wireless devices in the plurality
of wireless devices to obtain wireless environment information;
determining that the wireless environment information is
insufficient; and
responsive to the determining operation, configuring at
least a first wireless device, of the plurality of wireless devices,
to obtain additional information for the wireless environment.
References and Re} ections2
The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Zhang US 2006/0098588 Al May 11, 2006
Kim US 2012/0238267 Al Sept. 20, 2012
Patel US 2015/0257013 Al Sept. 10, 2015
Farkas US 2015/0305049 Al Oct. 22, 2015
Chou US 2016/0029249 Al Jan.28,2016
2 The Examiner additionally objects to the Specification. See Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2018-007013
Application 14/755,583
Claims 1-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being patent
ineligible. Final Act. 4.
Claims 1---6, 14--17, 19, 20, 22, and 23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(l) as being anticipated by Kim. Final Act. 5.
Claims 7 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim and Zhang. Id. at 9.
Claims 9-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim and Chou. Id. at 10.
Claim 18 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim and Patel. Id. at 14.
Claim 21 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kim and Farkas. Id. at 15.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). We discuss the
eligibility and patentability rejections, in tum.
A. Patent Eligibility
The Examiner determines the claims are patent ineligible under
35 U.S.C. § 101, because "the claimed invention is directed to a judicial
exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea)
without significantly more." Final Act. 4; see also Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank
Int'!, 573 U.S. 208,217 (2014) (Describing the two-step framework "for
distinguishing patents that claim laws of nature, natural phenomena, and
3
Appeal2018-007013
Application 14/755,583
abstract ideas from those that claim patent-eligible applications of those
concepts.").
After the docketing of this Appeal, the USPTO published revised
guidance on the application of§ 101 ("Guidance"). See USPTO, 2019
Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (Jan. 7,
2019) ("Memorandum"). Under the Guidance, the office first looks to
whether the claim recites:
( 1) any judicial exceptions, including certain groupings of
abstract ideas (i.e., mathematical concepts, certain methods of
organizing human activity such as a fundamental economic
practice, or mental processes); and
(2) additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into
a practical application (see MPEP § 2106.05(a}-(c), (e}-(h)).
Only if a claim (1) recites a judicial exception and (2) does not integrate that
exception into a practical application, does the Office then look to whether
the claim:
(3) adds a specific limitation beyond the judicial exception that
are not "well-understood, routine, conventional" in the field
(see MPEP § 2106.05(d)); or
( 4) simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional
activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high
level of generality, to the judicial exception.
See Memorandum.
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in determining the claims are
abstract, because the claims are directed to "real-world communication,
relying on tangible devices, that cannot be performed in the abstract or
without wireless devices." App. Br. 7
Pursuant to the Guidance, we are persuaded the rejection is in error.
The Examiner determines claim 1 is "directed to the abstract ideas of
4
Appeal2018-007013
Application 14/755,583
collecting and comparing known information, comparing new and stored
information and using rules to identify options, or obtaining and comparing
intangible data." Final Act. 4. The Guidance provides that "following rules
or instructions" is the abstract concept of "[c]ertain methods ofhuman
activity," because it is an example of "managing personal behavior or
relationships or interactions between people." Memorandum, 84 Fed. Reg.
at 52 (Section I (Groupings of Abstract Ideas)). The Guidance further lists
mathematical concepts and mental processes as abstract concepts. Id.
The limitations of claim 1 recite operations (identifying, aggregating,
determining, configuring) performed on or by a "plurality of wireless
devices." These recited wireless devices are not people, and thus, the recited
operations are not human activity. See Spec. ,r,r 20-22. Similarly, the
claimed plurality of wireless devices relate to wireless signals and wireless
environment information; thus, the recitations "cannot practically be
performed in the mind" and are not mental processes. Memorandum, 84
Fed. Reg. at 52 n.14. Nor do we see, based on the record before us, any
indication that these limitations recite mathematical concepts. See id. at 54
(Section III (A) (1) (Prong One: Evaluate Whether the Claim Recites a
Judicial Exception)).
Accordingly, we are persuaded claim 1 "does not recite a judicial
exception (a law of nature, natural phenomenon, or subject matter within the
enumerated groupings of abstract ideas in Section I)," so "the claim is
eligible at Prong One of revised Step 2A." Id. at 54 (Section III
(Instructions for Applying Revised Step 2A During Examination)). We do
not sustain the Examiner's patent eligibility rejection of claim 1,
5
Appeal2018-007013
Application 14/755,583
independent claims 22 and 23 which recite similar limitations, or the claims
dependent thereon.
B. Prior Art Rejections
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Kim discloses the
limitations of claim 1, because "Kim is focused on evacuating a secondary
user (SU) from a channel when a primary user (PU) returns," and
"[ m ]erely determining whether a PU has returned to a particular channel is
not equivalent to determining that wireless environment information is
insufficient" as claimed. App. Br. 8. Appellant further contends Kim
discloses "when the switching condition is not satisfied, the method merely
allows the secondary base station to continue communicating on the same
channel," which "is not equivalent to configuring a wireless device to obtain
additional information for the wireless environment as required by the
claims." J d.
We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. We adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent
with our analysis herein. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
We agree with the Examiner that, although "[ t ]he claim language does
not define what the information of the environment is or what constitutes
'Sufficient' or not," that "the system of Kim does in fact determine if
information is sufficient as claimed." Final Act. 18 ( citing Kim ,r,r 57-59).
Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Kim discloses a "switching
condition," of which the "'No' branch infers the information is insufficient."
Id. at 5.
6
Appeal2018-007013
Application 14/755,583
Kim discloses obtaining information so "the channel can be evaluated
to determine whether the primary user has utilized the channel," which is
tantamount to the recited obtaining wireless environment information. Kim
,r 58; see also Spec. ,r 38 ("[W]ireless environment information 112 includes
... identification of client devices associated with access points,
identification of channels used by client devices."). Kim further discloses
obtaining additional information if the obtained information is insufficient,
because Kim determines "the switching condition has not been met" based
on the obtained information, and "then the method proceeds to step 502 and
repeats to implement another iteration of data communication and
scanning." Kim ,r 59 (emphasis added). Kim discloses the "switching
condition" has been met (i.e., the information is sufficient) when "a primary
user has returned to the channel" (id.), at which point the secondary device
will preclude communications on that channel (id. ,r 7). See Final Act. 18;
Kim, Fig. 5; see also Spec. ,r 72 ("[A] wireless device is configured to
operate in a particular channel based on the additional wireless environment
information.").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in
error, as Kim's obtained wireless information is not "'enough to meet the
needs of a situation or a proposed end"'----of precluding communications on
the channel-when the wireless information indicates the primary user has
not returned to the channel. Reply Br. 5 ( quoting Merriam-Webster, n.d.
Web. 19 Dec. 2017); see also Final Act. 5---6. In such instances of
insufficient wireless information, Kim discloses scanning for additional
information. See Kim, Fig. 5. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the
Examiner errs in finding "the prior art properly reads on the broad claim
7
Appeal2018-007013
Application 14/755,583
limitations." Final Act. 18; see also In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404---05
( CCP A 1969) (During prosecution, "the applicant may then amend [the]
claims, the thought being to reduce the possibility that, after the patent is
granted, the claims may be interpreted as giving broader coverage than is
justified.").
CONCLUSION
We do not sustain the Examiner's patent eligibility rejection of claims
1-23.
We sustain the Examiner's anticipation rejection of independent claim
1. Appellant advances no further argument on claims 2---6, 14--17, 19, 20,
22, and 23. See App. Br. 9. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's
anticipation rejection of these claims for the same reasons discussed above.
The Examiner relies on the findings in Kim discussed above for the
limitations inherited by dependent claims 7-13, 18, and 21, which the
Examiner rejects as obvious. See Final Act. 9-15; App. Br. 9-11.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of these
claims for the same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-23 is affirmed.
The Examiner's decision is affirmed because we have affirmed at
least one ground of rejection with respect to each claim on appeal. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.50(a)(l).
8
Appeal2018-007013
Application 14/755,583
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
9