Ex Parte Qi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 29, 2013

11231005 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 29, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/231,005 09/16/2005 Emily H. Qi 42P22647 4213
45209 7590 07/29/2013
Mission/BSTZ
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
BATISTA, MARCOS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2642
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/29/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte EMILY H. QI, JESSE WALKER,
and KAPIL SOOD
____________

Appeal 2011-000220
Application 11/231,005
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and JOHNNY A. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judges.

KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000220
Application 11/231,005

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 12, 13, 15-18, and 20-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.

THE INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a technique wherein
before a transition from a current access point (AP) to a new AP, a mobile
wireless station (STA) may determine mobility capabilities, network
infrastructure and resource information that may be used to select a
transition mechanism to use via information acquired by the current AP
regarding the new AP. See Abstract.
Independent claim 12, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
12. An article comprising a computer-readable medium
having stored thereon instructions that, when executed, cause
one or more processors to:
generate a request message, with a wireless device
communicating with a current wireless access point, to request
from the current wireless access point operational information
corresponding to a plurality of target wireless access points,
wherein the request message is included in an IEEE 802.11
Transition Access Point (AP) Request Frame, wherein the
operational information comprises network security policies,
network access policies, cryptographic key availability
information and/or resource availability information; and
receive, in response to the request message, a report
message having the operational information corresponding to
each of the plurality of target wireless access points.
Appeal 2011-000220
Application 11/231,005

3

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 12, 13, 16, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rom (US 6,360,264 B1, Mar. 19, 2002),
Yun (US 2005/0094641 A1, May 5, 2005), and Tanizawa (US
2005/0135625 A1, Jun. 23, 2005). Ans. 3.
The Examiner rejected claims 15, 17, 20, and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rom, Yun, Tanizawa, and Lee (US
2004/0242228 A1, Dec. 2, 2004). Ans. 5.

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that the
combination of Rom, Yun, and Tanizawa teaches the limitation of “the
request message is included in an IEEE 802.11 Transition Access Point (AP)
Request Frame,” as recited in claim 12.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that “Yun does not suggest IEEE 802.11r.” Reply Br.
3. In particular, Appellants argue that, because the specification of the
instant application describes “IEEE 8002.11 Task Group R (IEEE 802.11r)
has proposed a Fast Transition Resource Information Element (FTRIE), a
Fast Transition Security Information Element (FTSIE) and a Fast Transition
Key Holder Information Element (FTKHIE)” (Spec. ¶ [0005]), one of
ordinary skill in the art would understand that “IEEE 802.11” as recited in
claim 12 requires IEEE 802.11r (App. Br. 7-8).
Appeal 2011-000220
Application 11/231,005

4
We disagree with Appellants’ argument. We adopt as our own the
findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer (see Ans. 3-9). We
highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as
follows.
Appellants’ argument is not commensurate in scope with the claim
language as claim 12 does not recite “IEEE 802.11r.” Although claims are
interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are
not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Claim 12 requires that the request message be included in an “IEEE
802.11” Transition Access Point (AP) Request Frame. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that Yun discloses in Paragraph [0014] that the request frame
is “of an IEEE 802.11 standard.”
Appellants also contend that “the references have been combined with
the benefit of hindsight,” and that “the proposed modification of the cited
references would require change to the principles of operation embodied in
the cited references.” App. Br. 8. Appellants have not provided any
supportive evidence for such propositions. We note that Attorney’s
arguments in a brief cannot take the place of evidence. See In re Pearson,
494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974).
For these reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error regarding
the rejection of claim 12, and claim 18, which has commensurate claim
language. Regarding claims 13, 15-17, and 20-22, Appellants argue these
claims are patentable by virtue of their dependency from independent claims
12 and 18 and for the same reasons advanced for claim 12. App. Br. 9.
Appeal 2011-000220
Application 11/231,005

5
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 12, 13,
15-18, and 20-22.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 12, 13, 16, 18, and 21
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rom, Yun, and
Tanizawa.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 15, 17, 20, and 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rom, Yun, Tanizawa, and
Lee.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 12, 13, 15-18, and 20-22 is
affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc