Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 2, 2021

2020004287 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 2, 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.
16/063,947 06/19/2018 Lei Mou 4657-24600 8939
97698 7590 09/02/2021
Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.
c/o Conley Rose, P.C.
4965 Preston Park Blvd, Suite 195E
Plano, TX 75093
EXAMINER
NG, CHRISTINE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2464
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/02/2021 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):
aipatent@huawei.com
dallaspatents@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte LEI MOU and SEN LI
____________________

Appeal 2020 -004287
Application 16/063,9471
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, MARC S. HOFF and JOYCE CRAIG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 19–38.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

1 We use the term “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42 (2019). Appellant states that Huawei Technologies Co.,
Ltd., is the real party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 1–18 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-004287
Application 16/063,947

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s invention is a service connection control method and a
terminal to reuse an original service connection to the maximum extent and
reduce network delays caused by service connection re-establishment. The
method includes determining, by a terminal that a network signal is
interrupted; maintaining, by the terminal, a first service connection to a
server, the first service connection being a service connection that is used for
communication between the server and the terminal before the interruption.
The method further includes, when the network signal recovers to normal,
reusing, by the terminal, the first service connection if an Internet Protocol
(IP) address of the terminal does not change within a first time interval.
Spec. ¶¶ 4–5.

Claim 19 is reproduced below:
19. A service coupling control method, comprising:
detecting, by a terminal, that a network signal is interrupted;
maintaining, by the terminal, a first service coupling to a server,
the first service coupling being used for communication
between the server and the terminal before the network signal is
interrupted;
detecting, by the terminal, that the network signal
recovers to normal; and
reusing, by the terminal, the first service coupling when
an Internet Protocol (IP) address of the terminal does not
change within a first time interval, the first time interval
Appeal 2020-004287
Application 16/063,947

3
comprising a time interval between a moment at which the
network signal is interrupted and a moment at which the
network signal recovers to normal.
Appeal Br. 16 (Claims App.).

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence is:

Name Reference Date
Donzis et al.
(“Donzis”)
US 6,976,071 B1 Dec. 13, 2005
Throop

US 7,200,641 B1 Apr. 3, 2007
Citron et al.
(“Citron”)
US 2007/0253413 A1

Nov 1, 2007
Mocanu et al.
(“Mocanu”)
US 2011/0002261 A1 Jan. 6, 2011

Claims 19, 22, 24, 25, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mocanu. Final Act. 4–7.
Claims 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Mocanu. Final Act. 7–10.
Claims 20 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mocanu and Donzis. Final Act. 10–12.
Claims 21 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Mocanu, Donzis, and Throop. Final Act. 12–13.
Claims 23, 26, 28, 33, stand 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Mocanu and Citron. Final Act. 13–16.
Throughout this decision, we make reference to the Appeal Brief filed
March 18, 2020 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief filed May 22, 2020 (“Reply
Appeal 2020-004287
Application 16/063,947

4
Br.”); the Final Office Action mailed December 16, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and
the Examiner’s Answer mailed April 13, 2020 (“Ans.”) for their respective
details.

ISSUE
Does Mocanu teach maintaining, by the terminal, a first service
coupling to a server, the first service coupling being used for communication
between the server and the terminal before the network signal is interrupted?

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The claim terms should be given their broadest reasonable meaning in
their ordinary usage as such claim terms would be understood by one skilled
in the art by way of definitions and the written description. In re Morris,
127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).

ANALYSIS
Claims 19, 22, 24, 25, and 27
Appellant argues that Mocanu fails to teach the claimed “maintaining,
by the terminal, a first service coupling to a server, the first service coupling
being used for communication between the server and the terminal before
the network signal is interrupted,” as recited in independent claim 19.
Appeal Br. 6–7 (emphasis omitted). Appellant contends that Mocanu
discloses that its network connection has been “disconnected and not
maintained” by its computing device after the connection is lost, whereas in
the present invention, “a first service connection is maintained and not
Appeal 2020-004287
Application 16/063,947

5
disconnected after a terminal detects a network signal interruption.” Appeal
Br. 7–8 (emphasis omitted).
To assess the propriety of the Examiner’s rejection, we must construe
the claim term “service coupling.” Appellant’s Specification does not define
this claim term. In fact, Appellant’s Specification does not use the two-word
phrase “service coupling” at all. Appellant’s Specification does regularly
employ the similar phrase “service connection.”
Appellant’s Specification provides a description of events following a
network signal interruption. Appellant discloses that “when a network signal
is interrupted” but a terminal does not send a finish (FIN) packet to the
server, the server considers that the service connection still exists. Spec.
¶ 34. The application layer considers that the service connection is faulty
only after the service connection cannot be detected by multiple times of
heartbeat detection. Id. ¶ 44. “If the network signal recovers before the
application layer discovers, according to heartbeats, that the service
connection is faulty, in this case, the server considers that the service
connection is available.” Id. “If the IP address of the terminal does not
change, the service connection already established between the terminal and
the server before the network signal is interrupted is still available.” Id.
“Therefore, optionally, in this embodiment of the present disclosure, after
determining that the network signal is interrupted, the terminal maintains the
original service connection to the server.” Id.
In light of the Specification, then, we construe a “service coupling” to
mean a wired or wireless service connection in which an IP address has been
assigned and has not expired. If a network signal is interrupted, the
application layer continues to assess a possible connection via heartbeat
Appeal 2020-004287
Application 16/063,947

6
detection, and restores a service connection with an unchanged IP address if
the network signal recovers before the application layer times out its
heartbeat detection procedure.
Mocanu teaches that a connection to a wireless network involves a
computing device sending a request for connection 201 to an access point
204. In response, a wireless service provider sends a valid IP address 207 to
the access point which is ultimately forwarded back to computing device
200. The computing device stores the IP address in its memory and uses it to
communicate with the network. Mocanu ¶ 5. The Examiner finds that in
Mocanu, “[t]he connection between computer device 200 and server 206
using a valid IP address before the [interruption] is maintained . . . because
computing device 202 has 40-50 minutes to reconnect to server 206 using
the same IP address (valid IP address 319) since the IP address is valid for
connection to the network for [that] time period.” Ans. 16; Mocanu ¶ 26.
Mocanu teaches that if a user reconnects to the network, or an interrupted
network connection is restored within that 40-50 minute time period, the
computing device would use that existing IP address to communicate with
the wireless network. Mocanu ¶ 26. The Examiner finds that even though the
connection between computer 200 and server 206 is lost, “the use of valid IP
address 319 to connect computing device 200 and server 206 . . . is not
disconnected/lost but is maintained for 40-50 minutes.” Ans. 17.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Mocanu’s scheme, in
which a pre-existing IP address is available to be re-used unchanged if an
interrupted network signal is restored within an appropriate interval,
corresponds to the maintenance of a “first service coupling” that was used
Appeal 2020-004287
Application 16/063,947

7
before the network signal was interrupted, under the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim phrase. Final Act. 4.
Appellant further argues that Mocanu fails to reuse the first service
coupling when an IP address of the terminal does not change within a first
time interval. Appeal Br. 8–9. Appellant again argues that because Mocanu
describes “reconnecting” the connection between computing device and
server, the connection in Mocanu has been disconnected and not maintained,
whereas in the invention, “a first service connection is maintained and not
disconnected.” Appeal Br. 13. Appellant’s argument is not persuasive for the
same reasons discussed supra. Because Mocanu teaches re-using the
unchanged IP address when a network signal interruption is restored, we
find that Mocanu teaches the claimed re-use of the first service coupling. See
Ans. 17–18.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 19, 22, 24, 25, and 27. We sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) rejection.

Claims 20, 21, 23, 26, and 28–38
Appellant does not present separate argument for the patentability of
these claims, and relies on the arguments made with respect to the 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a)(1) rejection of independent claim 19, the rejection of which we
sustain supra. Appeal Br. 14. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 29, 32, 34, 35, 37, and 38 over Mocanu for the same
reasons expressed with respect to the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1)
rejection of claim 19. For the same reason, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 20 and 30 over Mocanu and Donzis; we sustain the
Appeal 2020-004287
Application 16/063,947

8
Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 21 and 31 over Mocanu, Donzis, and
Throop; and we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 23, 26, 28,
33, and 36 over Mocanu and Citron.

CONCLUSION
Mocanu teaches maintaining, by the terminal, a first service coupling
to a server, the first service coupling being used for communication between
the server and the terminal before the network signal is interrupted. The
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 19–38 is affirmed.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:

Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19, 22, 24,
25, 27
102(a)(1) Mocanu 19, 22, 24,
25, 27

29, 32, 34,
35, 37, 38
103 Mocanu 29, 32, 34,
35, 37, 38

20, 30 103 Mocanu, Donzis 20, 30
21, 31 103 Mocanu, Donzis,
Throop
21, 31
23, 26 ,28,
33, 36
103 Mocanu, Citron 23, 26, 28,
33, 36

Overall
Outcome
19–38

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
Appeal 2020-004287
Application 16/063,947

9

AFFIRMED