Ex Parte Shanmugavadivel et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2017

13184142 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 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.
13/184,142 07/15/2011 Senthilraj Shanmugavadivel 112636-0472-101 9781
28120 7590
ROPES & GRAY LLP
IPRM Docketing - Floor 43
PRUDENTIAL TOWER
800 BOYLSTON STREET
BOSTON, MA 02199-3600
EXAMINER
RAHGOZAR, OMEED DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2467
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2017 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):
U S Paten tMail @ ropesgray. com
U S Paten tMail2 @ ropesgray.com
pair_rg @ firsttofile. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SENTHILRAJ SHANMUGAVADIVEL,
ANIL KAUSHIK, and RAJ KIRAN
Appeal 2016-0028561
Application 13/184,142
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, ADAM J. PYONIN, and AMBER L. HAGY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
HAGY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—16.2 We have jurisdiction over
these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify Symbol Technologies, Inc., as the real party in interest.
(App. Br. 3.)
2 In the Answer, the Examiner withdraws the rejection of claims 4 and 11.
(Ans. 2.)
Appeal 2016-002856
Application 13/184,142
Introduction
According to Appellants, “[t]he present invention relates generally to
wireless communication networks and more particularly to self-testing of
services in an access point of a communication network.” (Spec. 11.)
Exemplary Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is exemplary of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A method for self-testing of services within an
access point of a communication network, the method
comprising the steps of:
providing, within the access point, a table that has a mapping
between a service test, a list of packets for testing that
service, and a list of packets that should be received in
response to the testing;
emulating, within a packet emulator of the access point, the
packets for the service test;
marking, within the access point, the packets as marked
service test packets;
placing, by the access point, the marked service test packets
in an Rx queue of the access point;
processing, within the access point, the marked service test
packets, even though the marked service test packets are
emulated instead of being received through a baseband
processor, by the access point to provide response packets,
and marking these response packets as service test
response packets;
delivering, by the access point, the marked service test
response packets to a Tx queue of the access point, which
forwards them to the Rx queue within the access point;
retrieving, by the access point, the marked service test
response packets from the Rx queue;
2
Appeal 2016-002856
Application 13/184,142
comparing, within the access point, the marked service test
response packets to the list of packets that should have
been received in the response to the testing; and
showing the comparing step results of the service test on a
terminal display of a managing device.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Krishnamurthi et al. US 2003/0142629 A1 July 31, 2003
Seckendorf et al. US 2006/0205398 Al Sept. 14, 2006
Rajan et al. US 2008/0293402 Al Nov. 27, 2008
REJECTION3
Claims 1—3, 5—10, and 12—16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Seckendorf, Krishnamurthi, and Rajan. (Final Act. 6—
12.)
ISSUES
(1) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Seckendorf, Krishnamurthi, and Rajan teaches or suggests the limitations of
claims 1, 2, 5—9, and 12—16, including the steps of “marking, within the
access point, the packets as marked service test packets” and “marking [the]
response packets as service test response packets,” as recited in independent
claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claims 8 and 16.
(2) Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Seckendorf, Krishnamurthi, and Rajan teaches or suggests “wherein marking
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 4
and 11, as well as all rejections under 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 and 101. (Ans. 2.)
3
Appeal 2016-002856
Application 13/184,142
includes using a special Media Access Control address in a source address
field of the packets for use in testing,” as recited in dependent claim 3 and
commensurately recited in dependent claim 10.
ANALYSIS
A. Claims 1, 2, 5—9, and 12—16
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1,2, 5—9, and
12—16 in light of Appellants’ arguments the Examiner has erred. As to those
claims, we disagree with Appellants’ conclusions and we adopt as our own:
(1) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
action from which this appeal is taken, and (2) the corresponding reasons set
forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’
Appeal Brief. We concur with the corresponding conclusions reached by the
Examiner, and we highlight the following for emphasis.4
The Examiner finds Seckendorf teaches or suggests the limitations of
claim 1, except for the “placing” and “emulating” steps, for which the
Examiner relies on Krishnamurthi and Rajan, respectively. (Final Act. 6—8.)
The Examiner also finds it would have been obvious to the ordinarily skilled
artisan to have combined the teachings of the cited references. (Final Act.
7-8.)
Appellants principally challenge the Examiner’s reliance on
Seckendorf. Appellants first argue that Seckendorf does not teach or suggest
“self-testing” because Seckendorf requires a “remote server” and thus
“requires communications overhead for test packets.” (App. Br. 13—14.)
4 Only those arguments made by Appellants have been considered in this
decision. Arguments Appellants did not make in the briefs have not been
considered and are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
4
Appeal 2016-002856
Application 13/184,142
Appellants then argue Seckendorf does not teach or suggest the “providing”
step because the elements listed in the providing step “would be present in
the remote server and not in the software passed to the device to be tested.”
(App. Br. 13.) We disagree on both counts. The Examiner finds, and we
agree, “[s]elf-testing ... in the access point is taught by Seckendorf.” (Ans.
3.) Not only does Seckendorf expressly state that it describes embodiments
“for self-contained product acceptance testing on a wireless device”
(Seckendorf | 5) but, as the Examiner further finds:
Seckendorf paragraph 32 is directed to Figure 3 as a computer
platform that as whole simulates all features internally for
testing. The reference to Figure 1 in paragraph 32 is to indicate
that the external system functionality of system described in
Figure 1 may be implemented internally by computer simulation
in Figure 3. The succeeding Seckendorf paragraphs 0033
indicates this, “Further, after performing an initial analysis on an
initial set of product acceptance test data 29, analysis engine 21
may initiate further communications with one or more wireless
devices 12, 18, 20, 22 to retrieve additional data related to
product acceptance test data, or to initiate simulation of
additional test scenarios 25 and generation of new product
acceptance test data.”
Seckendorf teaches all listed elements of a service test (i.e.
product acceptance testing), a list of packets for testing that
service (product acceptance data), and a list of packets that
should be received (predetermined communication processing
standards) (Seckendorf, paragraph 0033 [:] the analysis
performed by analysis engine 21 may compare select portions of
product acceptance data 29 with select portions of predetermined
communications processing standards 27 to see whether or not
the data falls within the standards.). All are part of a simulated
internal system as per paragraph 0033, “initiate simulation of
additional test scenarios 25[.”]
(Ans. 3 (emphasis added); see also Seckendorf 119: “[D]ue to the
simulation capabilities of product acceptance testing application 23, wireless
5
Appeal 2016-002856
Application 13/184,142
devices ... do not need to be in communication with [a] wireless network
. . . [to] test communications processing ability of the device[s]” (emphasis
added).)
Appellants also argue the Examiner’s findings regarding Seckendorf
are in error because, in Seckendorf, “a real access point is not actually
tested”; rather, according to Appellants, Seckendorf describes only “a
simulated wireless device (45) that receives packets from a simulated TX
queue (41).” (App. Br. 14.) Thus, according to Appellants, Seckendorf fails
to teach at least the “processing” step of claim 1, and Appellants also
challenge related limitations of claim 1 on a similar basis. (Id.) We
disagree. Seckendorf teaches a wireless device (such as a “cellular
telephone 12”) that includes “a transmit (‘Tx’) component 41 for sending
communications from the processor of the wireless device” and “a receive
(‘Rx’) component 35 for receiving communications sent to the processor of
the wireless device.” (Seckendorf 124 (emphases added); see also Final
Act. 6—7.) In describing the operation of the “network simulation module
43” and the “wireless device handset simulation module 45,” Seckendorf
teaches that these simulation modules interact with the “Tx” and “Rx”
components (41, 35) of the wireless device (12) as part of a simulated
communication: “network simulation module 43 and wireless device
handset simulation module 45 may each send communications/messages to
Rx component 35, and/or may each receive communications/messages from
Tx component 41, to simulate at least some portion of a predetermined
network communications test scenario 25.” (Seckendorf 125.) We find,
therefore, the Examiner’s findings regarding the “processing” step (along
with the “placing,” “delivering,” and “retrieving” and “comparing” steps) of
claim 1 are supported by the cited teachings. (Final Act. 6—7; Ans. 3 4.)
6
Appeal 2016-002856
Application 13/184,142
Appellants also argue the Examiner’s findings regarding Seckendorf
are in error because Seckendorf does not each or suggest “marking, within
the access point, the packets as marked service test packets” or “marking
[the] response packets as service test response packets,” as recited in claim
1. (App. Br. 14; Reply Br. 2.) We disagree. The Examiner relies on, e.g.,
paragraphs 25—26 of Seckendorf, which disclose that the simulation modules
incorporate “[predetermined test scenarios . . . [that] may be defined by
predetermined communications processing standards . . . (Seckendorf
126; Final Act. 6—7.) The Examiner finds, and we agree, Seckendorf s
teachings of predetermined test scenarios teaches or suggests marking
packets as recited in claim 1. For example, Seckendorf teaches:
[W]ireless device handset simulation module 45 replicates the
message protocols and user interactions of a handset, such as
sending an SMS message, taking a picture and/or running an
application. Wireless handset simulation module 45 includes a
plurality of messages, message protocols, handset feature
characteristics, etc., such as may be associated with
predetermined test scenarios 25 and predetermined device/
network standards 27 (FIG. 1), in order to simulate a user
interaction and/or a communication of a handset feature ....
(Seckendorf 125 (emphasis added).) Appellants challenge this finding,
asserting “nowhere does Seckendorf describe that the packets used in these
tests are individually marked as test packets.” (App. Br. 14 (emphasis
added).) As the Examiner correctly notes, however, “the claims do not
recite ‘individually marked.’” (Ans. 3 4.)
Appellants also argue the Examiner’s findings are in error because the
Examiner is attempting to read Seckendorf’s teaching of “predetermined test
scenarios” onto “two separate claim limitations” of claim 1—that is, onto
marking both as “marked service test packets” and as “marked service test
7
Appeal 2016-002856
Application 13/184,142
response packets.” (Reply Br. 2 (emphases added).) We are not persuaded
of error. Seckendorf s disclosure of “predetermined test scenarios” includes
teaching of simulated communication data on both sides of the
communication—thus teaching both “service test packets” and “service test
response packets.” (See Seckendorf 125: “network simulation module 43
and wireless device handset simulation module 45 may each send
communications/messages to Rx component 35, and/or may each receive
communications/messages from Tx component 41, to simulate at least some
portion of a predetermined network communications test scenario 25.”)
In sum, we have considered Appellants’ arguments challenging the
Examiner’s findings, and we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1. We, therefore, sustain that
rejection, along with the rejection of independent claims 8 and 16, which
Appellants argue collectively with claim 1. (App. Br. 15.)
We have also considered Appellants’ arguments challenging the
Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 2, 5—7, 9, and 12—15. (App. Br.
15—16.) For each of these claims, Appellants do not provide sufficient
argument or evidence to persuade us the Examiner erred. Rather, we agree
the Examiner’s findings are supported by the teachings of the cited
references (see Final Act. 8—12, Ans. 4—5), and we, therefore, sustain the
Examiner’s rejections of these claims.
B. Claims 3 and 10
Claim 3 depends from independent claim 1, and recites “wherein
marking includes using a special Media Access Control address in a source
field of the packets for use in testing.” (App. Br. 19 (Claims App’x).)
Claim 10 depends from independent claim 8, and similarly recites “wherein
the packet emulator marks the packets by using a special Media Access
8
Appeal 2016-002856
Application 13/184,142
Control address in a source address field of the packets for use in testing.”
(App. Br. 20 (Claims App’x).)
The Examiner finds Krishnamurthi teaches this limitation, citing in
conclusory fashion to paragraph 172. (Final Act. 8.) In the Answer, the
Examiner further states that it is the “MACMaxRate” taught by
Krishnamurthi in paragraph 172 that the Examiner maps to the claimed
“special media access control address,” and that the claimed “source address
field” is mapped to “the MACprotocol itself.” (Ans. 4.) Appellants argue
the Examiner’s finding is in error because “although Krishnamurthi
(paragraph 172) describes test packets that are processed using a MAC
protocol,” (App. Br. 15), the Examiner’s findings are erroneously premised
on equating a “maximum rate” (MACMaxRate) with a “special Media
Access Control ‘address.’” (Reply Br. 3.) Appellants argue that
Krishnamurthi’s “maximum data rate parameter bears no relation to, and
therefore cannot possibly teach or suggest, marking that includes a special
Media Access Control ‘address,’ as recited in claims 3 and 10.” (Id.)
On this record, we are persuaded of Examiner error. The Examiner
does not persuasively explain how Krishnamurthi’s teaching of a maximum
rate for transmitting packets allowed by the MAC protocol, as disclosed by
Krishnamurthi in paragraph 172, corresponds to the claimed “special Media
Access Control address” (emphasis added). We, therefore, do not sustain
the rejections of claims 3 and 10.
9
Appeal 2016-002856
Application 13/184,142
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5—9, and 12—16 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 3 and 10 is
reversed.
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-IN-PART
10