Heikki Kokkinen et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2021

2020003135 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2021)

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.
13/807,247 06/14/2013 Heikki Kokkinen 39700-897N01US 9047
12358 7590 07/27/2021
Mintz Levin/Nokia Technologies Oy
One Financial Center
Boston, MA 02111
EXAMINER
CUNNINGHAM, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2021 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):
IPDocketingBOS@mintz.com
IPFileroomBOS@mintz.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte HEIKKI KOKKINEN, MIKA RINNE, and SAMI KEKKI

Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before RICHARD M. LEBOVITZ, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges.

CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals the Final Rejection
of claims 1–26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

INVENTION
The invention relates generally to mobile communications and local-
area network connectivity. Spec. ¶ 1. Claim 9 is illustrative of the subject
matter on appeal and is reproduced below:

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. According to Appellant, Nokia Technologies Oy of
Espoo, Finland, is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

2
9. A method comprising:
causing a connection to be established between a user
equipment and a local area network,
the local area network comprising a local gateway
apparatus, and the user equipment configured to communicate
over a cellular communication route and a local route;
receiving, at the user equipment and after the connection
to the local area network is established, first information
relating to the local area network, wherein the first information
is received via the local area network, wherein the first
information comprises an internet protocol address for the user
equipment;
transmitting, from the user equipment and after the
connection to the local area network is established, the first
information to a gateway selection function apparatus in a core
network of a cellular network, wherein the gateway selection
function apparatus is configured to communicate with and
control the local gateway apparatus;
receiving, at the user equipment and after the first
information is transmitted, via a cellular air interface, local area
network configuration information from the gateway selection
function apparatus, wherein the local area network
configuration information includes a bandwidth quota,
and wherein the local area network configuration
information is predefined and accessible to the gateway
selection function apparatus to control the connection between
the user equipment and the local area network; and
applying, by the user equipment, the bandwidth quota to
traffic sent and received via the local area network without
routing the traffic through the core network.
Appeal Br. 20 (Claims Appendix) (emphases added).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1–26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

3
Final Act. 2–3.
Claims 1–26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite. Final Act. 3.
Claims 1–26 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raleigh (US Pat. Pub. 2010/0188975 A1, pub. July. 29,
2010) in view of Koide (US Pat. Pub. 2009/0113073 A1, pub. Apr. 30,
2009), Hanson (US Pat. Pub. 2010/0080202 A1, pub. Apr. 1, 2010), Watfa
(US Pat. Pub. 2011/0170469 A1, pub. July 14, 2011), and Scholaert (US Pat.
Pub. 2010/0248719 A1, pub. Sept. 30, 2010). Final Act. 4–13.
ANALYSIS
I. Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §§ 112 first paragraph, second paragraph
Rejection of Claims 1–26
The Examiner rejects claims 1–26 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner rejects claims 1–26 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite. Id. at 3.
Appellant makes no argument about the rejections of claims 1–26 under pre-
AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, and pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph. Appeal Br. 4.
Any arguments not raised by Appellant in the Appeal Brief are
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv). Accordingly, we summarily sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–26 as failing to comply with the written
description requirement, and the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–26 as
being indefinite.

Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

4
II. Claims 1–26 Rejected Under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
A. The combination of Raleigh and Watfa teaches the limitation “the
gateway selection function apparatus is configured to communicate with and
control the local gateway apparatus”
The Examiner finds that Raleigh teaches a service controller in the
core network transmits a service plan/policy to a user device, which the
Examiner maps to the limitation “the gateway selection apparatus” recited in
claim 9 (and similarly recited in claims 1, 15, and 22). Final Act. 4–5, 7–8
(citing Raleigh ¶¶ 213, 221, 226, 232).
The Examiner finds that Watfa teaches a system controls IP traffic of
a local gateway, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “configured to
communicate with and control the local gateway apparatus.” Final Act. 5
(citing Watfa ¶¶ 49, 54).
The Examiner concludes that the combination of Raleigh and Watfa
teaches the limitation “the gateway selection function apparatus is
configured to communicate with and control the local gateway apparatus” in
order to reduce network congestion by offloading traffic. Final Act. 4–5, 7–
8 (citing Raleigh ¶¶ 213, 221, 226, 232; Watfa ¶¶ 49, 54).
Appellant argues that Raleigh’s service controller is not at all
equivalent to the gateway selection function apparatus because the service
controller of Raleigh does not “communicate with and control the local
gateway apparatus” as required by claims 1, 9, 15, and 22. Appeal Br. 14–
15; Reply Br. 4–5 (citing Final Act. 7 and Raleigh Figs. 1–8). According to
Appellant, there is no component in Figure 1 of Raleigh that is equivalent to
the local gateway apparatus, and therefore, there is no component in Raleigh
that is equivalent to the gateway selection function apparatus “configured to
communicate with and control the local gateway apparatus.” Appeal Br. 15
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

5
(emphases omitted). Appellant further argues that none of Hanson, Koide,
Watfa, and/or Scholaert suggests the gateway selection function apparatus
features of the “gateway selection function apparatus in a core network of a
cellular network, wherein the gateway selection function apparatus is
configured to communicate with and control the local gateway apparatus”
recited in claim 9. Appeal Br. 16–18; Reply Br. 5–8 (citing Hanson ¶¶ 27–
28; Watfa ¶ 49; Scholaert ¶ 38).
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller,
642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Appellant’s arguments with respect to Raleigh
do not address the specific findings made by the Examiner. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Raleigh and Watfa, rather than only Raleigh, teaches or
suggests the limitation “configured to communicate with and control the
local gateway apparatus” recited in claims, 1, 9, 15, and 22. Final Act. 4–5,
7–8 (citing Raleigh ¶¶ 213, 221, 226, 232; Watfa ¶¶ 49, 54).
The cited portion of Raleigh teaches that a service controller in the
core network (i.e., this teaches gateway selection) transmits a service
plan/policy to a user device, which teaches the limitation “the gateway
selection apparatus.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Raleigh ¶¶ 213, 221, 226, 232).
The cited portion of Watfa teaches a system controls IP traffic of a local
gateway, which teaches the limitation “configured to communicate with and
control the local gateway apparatus.” Final Act. 4–5 (citing Raleigh ¶¶ 213,
221, 226, 232; Watfa ¶¶ 49, 54). For the reasons, stated by the Examiner,
we agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of Raleigh
and Watfa teaches the limitation “the gateway selection function apparatus is
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

6
configured to communicate with and control the local gateway apparatus”
recited in claim 9 and similarly recited in claims 1, 15, and 22. Final Act. 4–
5, 7–8 (citing Raleigh ¶¶ 213, 221, 226, 232; Watfa ¶¶ 49, 54).
In addition, we note that paragraph 50 of Watfa teaches a controller
for a local gateway and Figure 2 of Watfa teaches service gateway 230 in the
core network (i.e., this teaches the gateway selection function apparatus)
controls and communicates with local gateway 235, which teaches the
limitation “the gateway selection function apparatus is configured to
communicate with and control the local gateway apparatus.” See Watfa
¶ 50, Fig. 2.
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that a person having of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have combined Raleigh and Watfa to teach the
limitation “the gateway selection function apparatus is configured to
communicate with and control the local gateway apparatus” recited in and
similarly recited in claims 1, 15, and 22.
B. The combination of Raleigh and Hanson teaches the limitation “the local
area network configuration information is predefined and accessible to the
gateway selection function apparatus to control the connection between the
user equipment and the local area network”
The Examiner finds that Raleigh’s service controller provides a user-
selected service plan to a device, which the Examiner maps to the limitation
“the . . . network configuration information is predefined and accessible to
the gateway selection function apparatus to control . . . the user equipment.”
Final Act. 4–5, 7–8; Ans. 4–5 (citing Raleigh ¶¶ 162, 213, 232, 237).
The Examiner finds that Hanson teaches a server activates a service
plan for a wireless device through the local area network, which the
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

7
Examiner maps to the limitation “local area network configuration
information” and “control the connection between the user equipment and
the local area network.” Final Act. 8; Ans. 4–5 (citing Hanson ¶¶ 27, 29,
32).
The Examiner concludes that the combination of Raleigh and Hanson
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art the limitation “the
local area network configuration information is predefined and accessible to
the gateway selection function apparatus to control the connection between
the user equipment and the local area network” recited in claim 9 and
similarly recited in claims 1, 15, and 22. Final Act. 4–5, 7–8; Ans. 4–5
(citing Raleigh ¶¶ 162, 213, 232, 237; Hanson ¶¶ 27, 29, 32).
Appellant argues Raleigh’s service controller does not provide to a
user equipment “local area network configuration information is predefined
and accessible to the gateway selection function apparatus to control the
connection between the user equipment and the local area network” because
Raleigh lacks any disclosure related to the service controller providing
configuration information “to control the connection between the user
equipment and the local area network.” Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Raleigh
¶ 213).
At the outset, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at
1097. In this case, Appellant’s arguments with respect to Raleigh do not
address the specific findings made by the Examiner. In particular, the
Examiner finds that Raleigh and Hanson, rather than only Raleigh, makes
obvious the limitation “the local area network configuration information is
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

8
predefined and accessible to the gateway selection function apparatus to
control the connection between the user equipment and the local area
network” recited in claim 9 and similarly recited in claims 1, 15, and 22.
Final Act. 4–5, 7–8; Ans. 4–5 (citing Raleigh ¶¶ 162, 213, 232, 237; Hanson
¶¶ 27, 29, 32).
The cited portion of Raleigh teaches that a service controller (i.e., this
teaches gateway selection function) provides a user-selected service plan
(i.e., this teaches pre-defined configuration information) to a device (i.e., this
teaches user equipment), which maps to the limitation “the . . . network
configuration information is predefined and accessible to the gateway
selection function apparatus to control . . . the user equipment.” Final Act.
4–5, 7–8; Ans. 4–5 (citing Raleigh ¶¶ 162, 213, 232, 237). The cited portion
of Hanson teaches a server activates a service plan (i.e., this teaches local
network configuration information) for a wireless device (i.e., this teaches
user equipment) through the local area network (i.e., this teaches the
connection between the user equipment and the local area network), which
teaches the limitation “local network configuration information” and
“control the connection between the user equipment and the local area
network.” Final Act. 4–5, 7–8; Ans. 4–5 (citing Hanson ¶¶ 27, 29, 32). For
the reasons given by the Examiner, we agree with the conclusion that the
combination of Raleigh and Hanson makes obvious the limitation “the local
area network configuration information is predefined and accessible to the
gateway selection function apparatus to control the connection between the
user equipment and the local area network” recited in claim 9 and similarly
recited in claims 1, 15, and 22. Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 4–5 (citing Raleigh
¶¶ 162, 213, 232, 237; Hanson ¶¶ 27, 29, 32).
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

9
Appellant’s arguments above have ignored the combined teachings
and suggestions of Raleigh and Hanson. Appeal Br. 15–16 (citing Raleigh
¶ 213). Specifically, we find no error with the Examiner’s finding that an
ordinarily skilled artisan would have had sufficient motivation to apply the
teachings of Raleigh — a service controller provides a pre-defined service
plan for a device (see Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 4–5) — to the teachings of
Hanson —a server provides a service plan to a device through a local area
network (id.) — collectively to arrive at the limitation “the local area
network configuration information is predefined and accessible to the
gateway selection function apparatus to control the connection between the
user equipment and the local area network” recited in claim 9 and similarly
recited in claims 1, 15, and 22.
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that a person having of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have combined Raleigh and Hanson to teach the
limitation “the local area network configuration information is predefined
and accessible to the gateway selection function apparatus to control the
connection between the user equipment and the local area network” recited
in claim 9 and similarly recited in claims 1, 15, and 22.
C. The combination of Raleigh and Hanson teaches the limitation “applying,
by the user equipment, the bandwidth quota to traffic sent and received via
the local area network without routing the traffic through the core network”
The Examiner finds that Raleigh teaches a service controller transmits
a service plan with a bandwidth limit to a device, which the Examiner maps
to the limitation “applying, by the user equipment, the bandwidth quota to
traffic sent and received.” Final Act. 5, 7–8; Ans. 4–5 (citing Raleigh
¶¶ 162, 213, 232, 237).
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

10
The Examiner finds that Hanson teaches a server activates a service
plan for a wireless device through a local area network, which the Examiner
maps to the limitation “by the user equipment, . . . sent and received via the
local area network.” Final Act. 8; Ans. 4–5 (citing Hanson ¶¶ 27, 29, 32).
The Examiner finds Watfa teaches IP traffic in a local area network
may go through the local gateway rather than through the operator’s core
network, which the Examiner maps to the limitation “via the local area
network without routing the traffic through the core network.” Final Act. 8
(citing Watfa ¶¶ 49, 54).
The Examiner concludes that the combination of Raleigh, Hanson,
and Watfa makes obvious the limitation “applying, by the user equipment,
the bandwidth quota to traffic sent and received via the local area network
without routing the traffic through the core network” recited in claim 9 and
similarly recited in claims 1, 15, and 22. Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 4–5 (citing
Raleigh ¶¶ 162, 213, 232, 237; Hanson ¶¶ 27, 29, 32; Watfa ¶¶ 49, 54).
Appellant argues that Raleigh does not teach “applying, by the user
equipment, the bandwidth quota to traffic sent and received via the local area
network without routing the traffic through the core network” recited in
claim 9 (and similarly recited in claims 1, 15, and 22) because Raleigh does
not include a bandwidth quota as local network configuration. Appeal Br.
16.
At the outset, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking
references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d at
1097. In this case, Appellant’s arguments with respect to Raleigh do not
address the specific findings made by the Examiner. In particular, the
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

11
Examiner finds that Raleigh, Hanson, and Watfa, rather than only Raleigh,
makes obvious the limitation “applying, by the user equipment, the
bandwidth quota to traffic sent and received via the local area network
without routing the traffic through the core network” recited in claim 9 and
similarly recited in claims 1, 15, and 22. Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 4–5 (citing
Raleigh ¶¶ 162, 213, 232, 237; Hanson ¶¶ 27, 29, 32; Watfa ¶¶ 49, 54).
The cited portion of Raleigh teaches a service controller transmits
(i.e., this teaches sent and received) a service plan with a bandwidth limit
(i.e., this teaches bandwidth quota) to a device (i.e., this teaches user
equipment), which teaches the limitation “applying, by the user equipment,
the bandwidth quota to traffic sent and received.” Final Act. 7–8; Ans. 4–5
(citing Raleigh ¶¶ 162, 213, 232, 237).
The cited portion of Hanson teaches a server activates a service plan
for a wireless device (i.e., this teaches user equipment) through the local area
network (i.e., this teaches the local area network), which teaches the
limitation “by the user equipment, . . . sent and received via the local area
network.” Final Act. 8; Ans. 4–5 (citing Hanson ¶¶ 27, 29, 32). In addition,
we note that paragraph 31 of Hanson teaches the service plan with a
bandwidth. See Hanson ¶ 31.
The cited portion of Watfa teaches IP traffic in a local area network
may go through the local gateway (i.e., this teaches the local area network)
rather than through the operator’s core network (i.e., this teaches without
routing to the core network), which teaches the limitation “via the local area
network without routing the traffic through the core network.” Final Act. 8
(citing Watfa ¶¶ 49, 54).
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

12
We agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the combination of
Raleigh, Hanson, and Watfa teaches the limitation “applying, by the user
equipment, the bandwidth quota to traffic sent and received via the local area
network without routing the traffic through the core network.” Final Act. 7–
8; Ans. 4–5 (citing Raleigh ¶¶ 162, 213, 232, 237; Hanson ¶¶ 27, 29, 32;
Watfa ¶¶ 49, 54).
Appellant’s arguments above have ignored the combined teachings
and suggestions of Raleigh, Hanson, and Watfa. Specifically, we find no
error with the Examiner’s finding that an ordinarily skilled artisan would
have had sufficient motivation to apply the teachings of Raleigh — transmits
a service plan with a bandwidth limit to a device (see Final Act. 7–8) — to
the teachings of Hanson —a server provides a service plan to a device
through a local area network (Final Act. 8) — to the teachings of Watfa —
IP traffic in a local area network may go through the local gateway rather
than through the operator’s core network (id.) — to collectively arrive at the
limitation “applying, by the user equipment, the bandwidth quota to traffic
sent and received via the local area network without routing the traffic
through the core network” recited in claim 9 and similarly recited in claims
1, 15, and 22.
Accordingly, Appellant does not persuade us of error in the
Examiner’s conclusion that a person having of ordinary skill in the art at the
time of the invention would have combined Raleigh, Hanson, and Watfa to
reach the limitation “applying, by the user equipment, the bandwidth quota
to traffic sent and received via the local area network without routing the
traffic through the core network” recited in claim 9 and similarly recited in
claims 1, 15, and 22.
Appeal 2020-003135
Application 13/807,247

13
Appellant does not argue claims 2–8, 10–14, 16–21, and 23–26
separately with particularity. Appeal Br. 11–18; Reply Br. 4–9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of: (1) independent claims
1, 9, 15, and 22; and (2) dependent claims 2–8, 10–14, 16–21, and 23–26
under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

CONCLUSION

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). See
37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–26 112, first
paragraph
Written
Description
1–26
1–26 112,
second
paragraph
Indefiniteness 1–26
1–26 103(a) Raleigh, Koide,
Hanson, Watfa,
Scholaert
1–26
Overall
Outcome
1–26