Ex Parte Strasman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 30, 2018

13685241 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/685,241 11/26/2012 Nery STRASMAN
82253 7590 05/02/2018
D. Kligler I.P. Services LTD
P.O. Box 57651
Tel Aviv, 61576
ISRAEL
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.
1262-1003 6167
EXAMINER
BEDNASH, JOSEPH A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/02/2018 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):
daniel@dkpat.co.il
info@dkpat.co .il
alon@dkpat.co.il
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NERY STRASMAN, ARIEL PELTZ,
and OFER WEILL
Appeal2017-010060 1
Application 13/685,241
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1-3 and 10-34, which are all of the pending claims. See
App. Br. 1-2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify V asona Networks Inc. as the real party in interest. See
App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-010060
Application 13/685,241
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Application is directed to the delay of"[ o ]ne or more packets
associated with a wakeup event for a mobile user device," which "thereby
extend[ s] the duration of the wakeup event." Abstract. Claims 1, 10, and 22
are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference (with emphasis
added):
1. An intercept module capable of reducing signaling load
on a mobile network, comprising:
an inspection module capable of inspecting intercepted
packets originating from a plurality of mobile devices, to
determine packets transmitted from a respective mobile device
to a public data network due to a wakeup event of the
respective mobile device and to determine packets to be delayed
from among the packets determined to have been transmitted
due to a wakeup event; and
a delay module configured to determine a delay duration
for packets originating from the plurality of mobile devices,
determined to be delayed by the inspection module, and
configured to delay said packets for the entire determined delay
duration and upon elapse of the determined delay duration,
from reception of the packet by the intercept module, to
forward the packet to its intended destination, thereby causing a
start of a next wakeup event for said mobile device to be
delayed by a time interval, and a consequent reduction in the
signaling load on the mobile network during said interval
compared to the signaling load that would have been on the
mobile network during said interval if said start had not been
delayed.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-3, 10-26, and 28-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Wang (US 2014/0051485 Al; Feb. 20,
2014). Final Act. 2.
2
Appeal2017-010060
Application 13/685,241
Claim 27 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Wang and Fuchs (US 2008/0285496 Al; Nov. 20, 2008).
Final Act. 15.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that
Wang relates to both [uplink and downlink] messages and
provides a different solution for each one. For the uplink
messages, those that are due to a wake up event, Wang suggests
aggregation on the UE 102, while for the downlink message
which cause UE 102 to wake up, Wang suggests aggregation at
a proxy.
Reply 3--4; see also App. Br. 7-8. Appellants contend that "claim 1 relates
to an inspection module capable of inspecting intercepted packets
originating from a plurality of mobile devices, a requirement that [is] clearly
not met by aggregation software on the UE 102 itself of Wang. The packets
aggregated at the proxy, on the other hand, are not 'due to a wake up
event'." Reply 4; see also App. Br. 8-10.
We are persuaded by Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds the
claimed "inspection module" corresponds to Wang's aggregation module
120, which resides in core network 106 outside the UE. Final Act. 3. The
Examiner, however, relies on Wang's disclosure of "inspection features as in
Fig. 7" (residing in UE 702) and Wang's filters 804 and 904 (residing
outside of the UE), for disclosing the claimed requirements of the inspection
module. Final Act. 3; Wang Figs. 2 and 7-9; see also Wang i-fi-137, 51, 58,
70-71. As is clear from Wang, the aggregation functions performed by the
User Equipment (see Wang Fig. 4, i-fi-1 48-52) are distinct from the
3
Appeal2017-010060
Application 13/685,241
aggregation functions performed at the network level (see Wang Fig. 8, i-f
70), and the Examiner has not pointed to any portion of Wang that discloses
the various functions consolidated into a single inspection module. See Ans.
8. Accordingly, we are persuaded by Appellants that Wang does not
disclose modules configured to act on packets originating from a plurality of
mobile devices as required by independent claim 1. See Reply Br. 4.
Thus, we are constrained by the record to reverse the rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claims 10 and 22 commensurate
in scope, and the rejections of the claims that depend therefrom.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-3 and 10-34 is reversed.
REVERSED
4