Ex Parte Taghavi Nasrabadi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

14295185 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/295,185 06/03/2014
15055 7590 07/27/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Mohammad Hossein Taghavi Nasrabadi
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.
092636Cl 6273
EXAMINER
HAILU, KIBROM T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHAMMAD HOSSEIN TAGHA VI NASRABADI,
HEMANTH SAMPATH, SANTOSH PAUL ABRAHAM,
and A VINASH JAIN
Appeal 2017-011125
Application 14/295, 185 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, MATTHEW R. CLEMENTS, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-15, 17-26, 28-38, 40--42, 44--47, 49-51,
53-56, 58-60, and 62---64, which constitute all claims pending in the
application. Claims 5, 16, 27, 39, 43, 48, 52, 57, and 61 have been canceled.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated.
App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-011125
Application 14/295, 185
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claimed Invention
Appellants' invention relates to wireless communication, and
specifically, to forwarding data by a high-capability wireless device in a
"peer-to-peer transaction." Spec. ,r 1-5. According to the Specification, the
invention "support[ s] the mechanism for an access point (AP) ... or another
high-capability wireless device to forward traffic from one device (i.e., peer)
to another[.]" Id. ,r 46. Criteria "are also proposed ... to decide when
forwarding via the AP is advantageous over direct peer-to-peer
communication." Id.
Claims 1, 12, 23, 34-36, 45, 54, 63, and 64 are independent. Claim 1
is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter on appeal, and reads as
follows:
1. A method for wireless communications by a source
apparatus, comprising:
receiving, from an apparatus capable of forwarding data
from the source apparatus to a destination apparatus, an
association message with information about forwarding
capability of the forwarding apparatus;
transmitting a forwarding request to the forwarding
apparatus based on the association message;
receiving a response to the forwarding request message
from the forwarding apparatus;
determining, based at least in part on the association
message and the response, whether to send data to the destination
apparatus via the forwarding apparatus or to send the data
directly to the destination apparatus; and
transmitting data to the destination apparatus based on the
determination.
App. Br. 23 (Claims App.) ( emphasis added).
2
b.
Appeal 2017-011125
Application 14/295, 185
Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 6-8, 10, 12, 17-19, 21, 23, 28-30, 32, 34--36, 40, 42, 45,
49, 51, 54, 58, 60, 63, and 64 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I02(e) as
anticipated by Mashimo (US 2009/0268634 Al; publ. Oct. 29, 2009).
Final Office Action 12-14 ("Final Act.," mailed Nov. 23, 2016) .
•
under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over Mashimo and Kwon
et al. '247 (US 2010/0008247 Al; publ. Jan. 14, 2010). Final Act. 14--16.
Claims 4, 15, 26, 38, 47, and 56 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Mashimo and Marin et al.
(WO 2009/069091 Al; publ. June 4, 2009). Final Act. 16-17.
Claims 9, 20, 31, 41, 50, and 59 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as unpatentable over Mashimo and Yoon et al.
(US 2005/0107102 Al; publ. May 19, 2005). Final Act. 17.
Claims 11, 22, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Mashimo and Kwon et al. '848 (US 8,797,848 B2; iss.
Aug. 5, 2014). Final Act. 17-18.
ANALYSIS
~>---
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are persuaded the
Examiner erred in reiectirn.r claims 36-38. 40-42. 44--47. 49-51. 53-56.
Appeal 2017-011125
Application 14/295, 185
these remaining claims, we adopt as our own the findings and reasons set
forth in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner's
Answer. We provide the following discussion for highlighting and
emphasis.
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-15, 17, 19-26, 28, and 30-35
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in finding Mashimo discloses
"an association message with information about forwarding capability of the
forwarding apparatus," as recited in claim 1. 2 Specifically, Appellants
contend, "the cited portions of Mashimo teach that a transmitting apparatus
101 may 'receive an annunciation signal' broadcast from a relay apparatus
and that the annunciation signal corresponds to a beacon, not an 'association
message' as recited in claim 1." App. Br. 14 (emphasis added). Appellants
elaborate:
As opposed to a beacon that is broadcast, Appellants submit that
those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that an
association message is generally a unicast message that is
transmitted by one apparatus to another specific apparatus ( e.g.,
to associate with the other apparatus in order to establish
communication with the other apparatus).
Id. at 15. 3 Appellants' argument, however, does not persuade us of error.
2 Appellants group independent claims 12, 23, 34, and 35 with claim 1 (App.
Br. 1 7) and do not present separate arguments for their respective dependent
claims 2--4, 6, 8-11, 13-15, 17, 19-22, 24--26, 28, and 30-33. We select
claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
3 In addition to relying on the Specification, Appellants submit the following
purportedly as extrinsic evidence: (i) Jim Geier, Understanding 802.11
Frame Types, Wi-Fi Planet (Aug. 15, 2002) (www.wi-fiplanet.com/tutorials/
article. php/1447501 /Understanding-80211-Frame-Types.htm) (last visited
4
Appeal 2017-011125
Application 14/295, 185
We construe the term "association message" in accordance with its
"broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification." In re
Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). We
observe first that the language of claim 1 expressly defines an "association
message" as being information, specifically, "information about forwarding
capability of the forwarding apparatus" and subsequent actions carried out
based on that information. App. Br. 23. The Specification sheds little
further light on the term, only stating, "AP forwarding capability may be
announced periodically by an AP using an information element (IE) within a
beacon or within other control messages. Forwarding capable STA may
announce the forwarding capability in its association messages." Spec. ,r 59.
"[ A ]ssociation message" is mentioned nowhere else in the Specification, and
the Specification does not ( contrary to Appellants' argument) require an
association message to be "a unicast message that is transmitted by one
apparatus to another specific apparatus" as "opposed to a beacon that is
broadcast." See supra; App. Br. 15.
Appellants also do not explain why the Geier and Meraki articles
support their argument or construction of "association message." The
June 5, 2018) ("Geier"); and (ii) Cisco Meraki, 802.11 Association Process
Explained (Aug. 15, 2002) ( documentation.meraki.com/MR/
WiFi_Basics_and_Best_Practices/802.1 l_Association_process_explained)
(last visited June 5, 2018) ("Meraki"). Appellants, however, have not
attempted to demonstrate "good and sufficient reasons why the [Geier and
Meraki articles are] necessary and [were] not earlier presented," as our rules
require. 3 7 C.F .R. § 1.116( e ). Nevertheless, the admissibility of the Geier
and Meraki articles is moot, because we find the articles do not support
Appellants' arguments for the reasons set forth herein.
5
Appeal 2017-011125
Application 14/295, 185
articles describe an association request and response whereas claim 1 recites
an association message. Also, the articles pertain specifically to IEEE
802.11 communications, whereas Appellants' claims are directed to a
"variety of wired or wireless apparatuses." Spec. ,r 30.
Accordingly, we conclude "association message" as recited in claim 1
is not limited to a "unicast message," but rather, is a message sent by and
received by the elements recited in claim 1, including the information as
recited in claim 1, and triggering the actions recited in claim 1. Appellants
do not dispute the Examiner's finding that Mashimo' s "beacon" is a message
that includes all of the information and actions required of the "association
message" recited in claim 1. The fact that Mashimo refers to the element as
a "beacon" rather than "association message" does not demonstrate the
Examiner erred because anticipation is "not an ipsissimis verbis test." In re
Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (internal citations and quotation
marks omitted) ( emphasis added); see also Standard Havens Prods., Inc. v.
Gencor Indus., Inc., 953 F.2d 1360, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("An anticipatory
reference ... need not duplicate word for word what is in the claims").
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of
claim 1. We also sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2--4, 6, 8-15,
17, 19-26, 28, and 30-35, which Appellants grouped with claim 1. See
supra, fn. 2.
6
Appeal 2017-011125
Application 14/295, 185
Claims 7, 18, and 2 9
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites that the "forwarding request
message comprises one or more traffic parameters."4 The Examiner finds
Mashimo' s description of a relay request discloses the disputed limitation,
because the relay request is sent to the relay apparatus 102 and, therefore,
includes the address (traffic parameter) of the relay apparatus 102. Ans. 10.
Appellants argue Mashimo "does not explicitly or inherently teach or
suggest" that the relay request message includes the address of the relay
apparatus 102. App. Br. 19. We, however, are not persuaded of error.
In supporting an anticipation rejection, the Examiner may "take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). Mashimo
discloses an invention that purports to improve "wireless transmission
technology standardized by IEEE 802.11." Mashimo ,r 4. According to
Appellants, "all [IEEE 802.11] frames contain MAC addresses of the
... destination station." See Geier 1 ("all [IEEE 802 .11] frames contain
MAC addresses of the ... destination station"). One of ordinary skill in the
art, therefore, reasonably would infer that Mashimo 's relay request,
transmitted to the relay apparatus 102 under IEEE 802.11, includes the
address of the relay apparatus 102.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred,
and we sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of claims 7, 18, and 29.
4 Appellants argue dependent claims 7, 18 and 29 as a group. App. Br. 19.
We select claim 7 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
7
Appeal 2017-011125
Application 14/295, 185
Claims 36-38, 4rJ--42, 44-47, 49--51, 53-56, 58-60, and 62-64
Independent claim 36 recites "determining ... whether it is preferable
to send the data from the source apparatus directly to the destination
apparatus or to send the data from the source apparatus to the destination
apparatus via the forwarding apparatus." App. Br. 29 (emphasis added). 5
The Examiner finds Mashimo' s relay apparatus 102 teaches the claimed
"determining" through its description of accepting the relay request. Ans. 9-
10. Appellants argue that "the relay apparatus transmitting a relay
acceptance message in response to a relay request message[,] if the relay
apparatus 103 can relay[,] is not the same as a 'forwarding apparatus ...
determining . .. whether it is preferable . .. 'as recited." App. Br. 18
(emphasis added). We are persuaded by Appellants' argument.
The term "preferable" means relatively or comparatively better. See
Oxford English Dictionary Online, http://www.oed.com/view/Entry/
149999?redirectedFrom=preferable#eid (last visited June 16, 2018)
("Worthy to be preferred; to be chosen or desired rather than another; more
desirable or suitable"). As the Specification describes, "preferable"
connotes a comparison. Spec. ,r 61 ("decide whether the AP forwarding is
preferable to direct communication"); see also id. ,r 25 ("preferred or
advantageous over other aspects"). We agree with Appellants' argument
that Mashimo' s disclosure of accepting a relay request by relay apparatus
102 does not equate to the comparison recited in claim 36, i.e., whether it is
preferable to send the data from the source apparatus directly to the
5 Independent claims 45, 54, 63, and 64 also recite determining "whether it
is preferable" to send data directly to a destination or via a forwarding
apparatus.
8
Appeal 2017-011125
Application 14/295, 185
destination apparatus or to send the data from the source apparatus to the
destination apparatus via the forwarding apparatus. The Examiner cites no
disclosure in Mashimo of any such comparison to determine what is
"preferable."
Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 36, 45, 54, 63, and 64. Claims 37, 38, 40-42, 44, 46, 47,
49--51, 53, 55, 56, 58-60, and 62 each depend from one of the foregoing
independent claims, and therefore also include the disputed limitation.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 36-38,
40-42, 44--47, 49--51, 53-56, 58---60, and 62---64.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-15, 17-26,
and 28-35.
We reverse the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 36-38, 40-42,
44--47, 49--51, 53-56, 58---60, and 62---64.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
9