Ex Parte Rajamani et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 27, 2017

13240852 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 2017)

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.
13/240,852 09/22/2011 Krishnan Rajamani 102946 4549
23696 7590 05/01/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
LUO, ANTHONY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/01/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KRISHNAN RAJAMANI, MAARTEN MENZO WENTINK, and
VINCENT KNOWLES JONES
Appeal 2016-007208
Application 13/240,8521
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—4, 6—17, 19—30, 32—43, and 45—52.
Claims 5, 18, 31, and 44 have been canceled. See Response to Notification
of Non-Compliant App. Br. 3—9. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is QUALCOMM
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-007208
Application 13/240,852
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants’ invention generally relates to device discovery and
operation with tunneled direct link setup (TDLS). Spec. 12. An
understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary
claim 1, which is reproduced below with emphasis added to highlight the
disputed limitations.
1. A method for wireless communications by a first device,
comprising:
discovering one or more devices of a specific type;
identifying one or more of the discovered devices that are
capable of supporting tunneled direct link setup (TDLS)
operation;
selecting a second device from the one or more identified
devices based on one or more device capabilities, wherein the
device capabilities comprise one or more of an ability to support
display operation over TDLS link or preference to use TDLS; and
establishing a TDLS link with the second device.
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
References
Yee et al.
Barkan
Yao et al.
Schramm et al.
Zhodzishsky et al.
US 2008/0069047 Al Mar. 20, 2008
US 2010/0296441 Al Nov. 25, 2010
US 2011/0145421 Al June 16, 2011
US 2011/0221633 Al Sept. 15,2011
US 8,135,346 B2 Mar. 13,2012
2
Appeal 2016-007208
Application 13/240,852
Rejections
Claims \-A, 6, 7, 11-17, 19, 20, 2A-30, 32, 33, 37—43, 45, 46, and 50-
52 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the
combination of Yao and Yee. Final Act. 6—13.2
Claims 8, 21, 34, and 47 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Yao, Yee, and Schramm. Final
Act. 13-15.
Claims 9, 22, 35, and 48 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Yao, Yee, and Zhodzishsky.
Final Act. 15—17.
Claims 10, 23, 36, and 49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combination of Yao, Yee, and Barkan. Final
Act. 17-19.
Dispositive Issues3
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Yao and Yee
teaches or suggests “selecting a second device from the one or more
identified devices based on one or more device capabilities, wherein the
device capabilities comprise one or more of an ability to support display
operation over TDLS link or preference to use TDLS,” as recited in claim 1
and similarly recited in independent claims 14, 27, and 40?
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Yao and Yee
teaches or suggests “transmitting a message comprising at least one of a
Tunneled Direct Link Setup (TDLS) display operation capability or TDLS
2 Although the heading of the rejection omits claim 50, claim 50 is addressed
in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 12—13.
3 Because we find these issues to be dispositive, we do not reach Appellants’
remaining contentions raised in the Appeal Brief.
3
Appeal 2016-007208
Application 13/240,852
preference,” as recited in claim 11 and similarly recited in independent
claims 24, 37, and 50?
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 14, 27, and40
Appellants contend the combination of Yao and Yee fails to teach or
suggest “selecting a second device from the one or more identified devices
based on one or more device capabilities, wherein the device capabilities
comprise one or more of an ability to support display operation over TDLS
link or preference to use TDLS,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited
in independent claims 14, 27, and 40. App. Br. 9. Appellants contend Yao
does not teach or suggest “selecting a second device from the one or more
identified devices” but, instead, discloses determining whether two mobile
devices are peers based on whether both mobile devices are associated with
the same fixed device. App. Br. 9-10 (citing Yao Tflf 34, 35). Appellants
further contend “even if, arguendo, Yao did teach selecting a second device
from one or more identified devices (which Appellants do not concede), Yao
fails to teach or suggest that such a selection is based on one or more device
capabilities,'’'’ as required by claim 1. App. Br. 10. Appellants contend Yao
discloses determining whether two devices are peers based on a state of the
two devices (e.g., being associated with the same fixed device) and not
based on one or more device capabilities (e.g., the device’s ability to do
something “such as acting as a source or sink device, an ability to support a
certain display resolution, an ability to communicate via TDLS, etc.” App.
Br. 10. Appellants further contend Yao’s determination of whether to
establish a direct link with another device based on a quality of service via
the direct link does not teach or suggest that the determination is based on
4
Appeal 2016-007208
Application 13/240,852
the capabilities of the devices but, instead, that the determination is based on
a characteristic of the wireless connection (e.g., the direct link). App.
Br. 10-11.
The Examiner finds:
Yao discloses the TDLS information is used to determine
whether the two mobile are peers (para. 35, lines 15-18). Such a
determined is for selecting a channel used for the second mobile
device as illustrated steps 230, 345 and 240 in FIG. 2. The
selection of the second mobile device is based on whether it is a
peer and its quality of service, which is the device capability, is
compatible or not.
Final Act. 2; see also Final Act. 7; Ans. 4, 16—17. The Examiner further
finds “[i]n the field of communication, a quality of service is commonly
related with the bandwidth or speed” and “[t]he higher bandwidth of the
communication the higher the quality of service the device could provide”
and, therefore, “a quality of service ... of the peer is the device capabilities
of the peer device.” Ans. 17. The Examiner concludes, therefore, Yao
teaches or suggests “selecting a second device from the one or more
identified devices based on one or more device capabilities,” as recited in
claim 1, based on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “device
capabilities.” Id.
We find Appellants’ contention persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner (Ans. 16) that Yao teaches or suggests selecting a device from the
one or more identified devices based on whether the device is a peer and a
quality of service associated with communicating with the device via a direct
link (Yao Tflf 52—54). However, we disagree that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of “device capabilities” includes Yao’s quality of service. The
plain meaning of the term “device capabilities” refers to capabilities of a
5
Appeal 2016-007208
Application 13/240,852
device, i.e., “[t]he capacity [of the device] to be used to be used, treated, or
developed for a specific purpose”4 which is consistent with Appellants’
Specification. See e.g., Spec. ^fl[ 33, 34, 47. We do not find, and the
Examiner fails to identify, any portion of the Specification indicating that a
device capability includes a characteristic of a communication link between
two devices such as a quality of service associated with a particular link, as
taught by Yao. As such, we find the Examiner’s construction unreasonably
broad. Accordingly, we are constrained by the record to not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1; independent claims 14, 27, and 40, which
recite corresponding limitations; and the rejections of claims 2-4, 6—10, 15—
17, 20-23, 28—30, 32—36, 41—43, and 45^49, which depend from claims 1,
14, 27, and 40.
Claims 11, 24, 37, and 50
Appellants contend the combination of Yao and Yee fails to teach or
suggest “transmitting a message comprising at least one of a Tunneled
Direct Link Setup (TDLS) display operation capability or TDLS
preference,” as recited in claim 11 and similarly recited in independent
claims 24, 37, and 50. App. Br. 14. Appellants argue:
Yee paragraphs [0043] and [0063] simply state that in
determining the proximity of each DLS peer, a device (e.g., a
high definition television) can obtain information about QoS
capabilities and determine a maximum supported transmit rate
for each DLS peer. However, Yee is silent as to transmitting any
information about “a [TDLS] display operation capability or
TDLS preference” to a device.
4 Morris, W., The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.
Houghton Mifflin Company (1981)
6
Appeal 2016-007208
Application 13/240,852
App. Br. 14; see also App. Br. 12.
Regarding the disputed limitation, the Examiner finds:
Yee discloses “wireless client 210 also obtains the QoS
capabilities of each DLS peer” ... and “the present invention can
be implemented in a high definition television”.... In a broadest
reasonable interpretation, a direct link setup (DLS) mode is a
tunneled direct link setup (TDLS) mode, especially Yao
discloses a DLS is a TDLS mode ....
Ans. 20 (citing Yee Tflf 43, 64; Yao 154) (internal citations omitted).
Yee teaches a device can obtain information about quality of service
capabilities of a DLS peer to establish the highest supportable transmit rate
to each DLS peer. Yee 143. We agree with the Examiner that Yee teaches
the invention may be implemented in a high definition television. Yee | 64.
However, the Examiner’s findings fail to explain how obtaining quality of
service capabilities of a high definition television (e.g., a DLS peer) to
establish the highest supportable transmit rate (e.g., MaxDLSrate) teaches or
suggests obtaining a TDLS display operation capability or a TDLS
preference, as required by claim 11. As such, we are constrained by the
record to not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11, independent
claims 24, 37, and 50, which recite corresponding limitations; and claims 12,
13, 25, 26, 38, 39, 51, and 52, which depend from claims 11, 24, 37, and 50.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—4, 6—17, 19—30, 32—
43, and 45—52 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
7