Intel Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 23, 2021

2020006247 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 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.
15/574,012 11/14/2017 Dave CAVALCANTI P87250PCT-US 3069
152398 7590 12/23/2021
Alliance IP, LLC - I
20 E. Thomas Rd.
Suite 2200, PMB 96
Phoenix, AZ 85012
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, LIEM HONG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2416
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2021 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):
docket@allianceip.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DAVE CAVALCANTI and ANA LUCIA PINHEIRO
________________

Appeal 2020-006247
Application 15/574,012
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, LARRY J. HUME, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 23‒41.1 Claims 1‒22 are canceled. Appeal Br. 31
(Claims App.). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies INTEL CORPORATION as the real
party in interest. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2020-006247
Application 15/574,012

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to intelligent vehicle systems that
transmit messages to vehicles, fixtures, and pedestrians using the Wireless
Access in Vehicular Environments (WAVE) standard. Spec. 1:15‒30.
Claims 23 and 35 are illustrative of the appealed subject matter and read as
follows:
23. A machine-readable medium having instructions thereon
that when operated on by a machine cause the machine to
perform operations comprising:
receiving a registration request comprising a wireless
access in vehicular environments basic service set (WBSS)
information and a vehicle to everything (V2X) communication
capability indication, from a user equipment (UE) in a vehicular
environment to provide services over the wireless access in
vehicular environments (WAVE) basic service set (WBSS) in
wireless channels at a vehicular proximity services (ProSe)
function, wherein the WBSS information includes a basic
service set identifier (BSSID), UE authentication information
and a dedicated short range communications (DSRC) channel
number;
deciding at the ProSe function to authorize registration of
the UE to provide services over the WBSS using at least the
V2X communication capability indication and the WBSS
information; and
after deciding to authorize the UE, sending a registration
response from the ProSe function comprising the WBSS
information to be used by the UE for the services to confirm the
WBSS discovery support by the ProSe function.
35. A processing circuitry of a user equipment (UE) in a
vehicular environment, the processing circuitry to:
receive an announcement of availability of a wireless
access in vehicular environments (WAVE) basic service set
(WBSS) at the UE from a vehicular environment proximity
Appeal 2020-006247
Application 15/574,012

3

services (ProSe) Function, the announcement including a list of
subscribed services provided by the announced WBSS, wherein
the UE and a time at which to announce the WBSS services are
determined, by the ProSe Function, based on at least location
information of the UE and service subscription information of
the UE;
determine at the UE whether the UE has been subscribed
to a listed service included in the list of subscribed services in
the announcement of the announced WBSS; and
in response to determining that the UE has been
subscribed to the listed service, start operation by the UE in the
announced WBSS by joining the WBSS without sending a
response to the ProSe Function to reduce latency in the joining
process.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 23, 32, and 35‒38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chun (US 2018/0077668 A1; Mar. 15, 2018), Han (US
2015/0312883 A1; Oct. 29, 2015), and Kweon (US 2016/0169688 A1;
June 16, 2016). Final Act. 2‒13.
Claims 24 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Chun, Han, Kweon, and Cherkaoui (US 2015/0360611
A1; Dec. 17, 2015). Final Act. 14‒15.
Claims 26‒29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Chun, Han, Kweon, and Xu (US 2018/0192268 A1; July 5, 2018).
Final Act. 15‒17.
Claims 30, 31, 33, 34, and 39‒41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Chun, Han, Kweon, and Watfa (US 2016/0374104 A1;
Dec. 22, 2016). Final Act. 17‒22.
Appeal 2020-006247
Application 15/574,012

4

ANALYSIS
Claim 23
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 23 because
Chun, Han, and Kweon do not teach or suggest “wherein the WBSS
information includes a basic service set identifier (BSSID), UE
authentication information and a dedicated short range communications
(DSRC) channel number.” See Appeal Br. 14‒22. In particular, Appellant
argues Chun teaches a UE that informs a network that the UE will operate as
the road side unit (RSU). Id. at 16 (citing Chun Fig. 12). Appellant argues
that if the UE is approved to operate as the RSU, the network transmits RSU
configuration information to the UE with a registration response message.
Id. (citing Chun ¶ 202). Appellant argues this registration response message
does not include “a basic service set identifier (BSSID), UE authentication
information and a dedicated short range communications (DSRC) channel
number.” Id.
Appellant argues Han teaches a service provider transmits a service
advertisement message that includes a WBSS recognizer and a service
channel to the vehicle. Id. at 12 (citing Han ¶¶ 43‒44). Appellant argues Han
does not teach or suggest receiving a registration request comprising WBSS
information including the claimed information. Id. at 17.
Appellant also argues Kweon does not teach or suggest the claimed
WBSS information. Appeal Br. 17‒18. Appellant argues Kweon teaches a
transmission side authentication token of a traffic light, but does not teach
the claimed registration response message. Id. at 18.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds Chun teaches a registration request with V2X capability information,
Appeal 2020-006247
Application 15/574,012

5

where the registration is confirmed by a registration response message.
Ans. 4 (citing Chun Fig. 12, ¶¶ 145, 152, 153, 202, 209). The Examiner
finds Han teaches a WAVE service advertisement containing the WBSS
recognizer, which the Examiner interprets as the claimed BSSID, and a
service channel used by the WBSS which enables a wireless terminal to
register for the WBSS. Ans. 5‒6 (citing Han Fig. 1, ¶¶ 31, 32, 42).
The Examiner finds Chun does not explicitly teach the WBSS related
information, but an ordinarily skilled artisan would have used Han’s
teachings to enable the UE to include the collective WBSS information as
part of Chun’s registration request. Id. at 7. The Examiner further finds
Kweon teaches an authentication procedure between a vehicle and a traffic
light where the vehicle sends an authentication token to the traffic light in an
emergency request message. Id. at 8 (citing Kweon Fig. 9, ¶ 107). The
Examiner finds an ordinarily skilled artisan would have modified the Chun-
Han system to include the authentication token taught by Kweon to allow
validation of emergency vehicles. Id. at 8‒9.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive of Examiner error because
Appellant attacks the references individually instead of addressing the
combined teachings as articulated by the Examiner. Each reference cited by
the Examiner must be read, not in isolation, but for what it fairly teaches in
combination with the prior art as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Appellant does not persuasively identify
error in the Examiner’s findings regarding the combined teachings of these
references, and in particular regarding Han’s teaching of the claimed “basic
service set identifier (BSSID)” and “dedicated short range communications
Appeal 2020-006247
Application 15/574,012

6

(DSRC) channel number” and Kweon’s teaching of the claimed “UE
authentication information.”
Appellant further argues an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have
been motivated to combine Chun and Han because doing so would render
Chun unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change its principle of
operation. Appeal Br. 11‒13. In particular, Appellant argues Chun’s UE
does not have the WBSS recognizer and service channel when the UE sends
its registration message to the network. Id. at 12. Appellant argues the UE
receives the configuration information from the network after the UE is
approved to operate as the RSU by the network. Id. Appellant argues that
including Han’s service advertisement message in Chun’s UE registration
message would defeat the purpose of Chun’s invention. Id. at 12‒13.
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. Appellant fails to
explain why the Examiner’s proposed modification would render Chun
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose or change Chun’s principle of
operation. Appellant has not identified the intended purpose of Chun or how
Chun’s purpose is changed by the proposed modification. Nor has Appellant
identified the principle of operation of Chun or how it is changed. Instead,
Appellant has explained the modification proposed by the Examiner and
asserted, without explanation, that this modification is inappropriate. See
Appeal Br. 11‒13. The Examiner makes findings in response to these
assertions (see Ans. 4‒7), explaining how the references would be combined
and the advantages of doing so, and Appellant did not file a Reply Brief,
directly respond to these findings, or persuasively identified error in the
Examiner’s rationale.
Appeal 2020-006247
Application 15/574,012

7

For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 23.
We also sustain the obviousness rejection of independent claim 38, which
Appellant argues is patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal Br. 11‒22,
28‒29. We also sustain the rejections of dependent claims 24‒34 and 39‒41,
which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See id.
Claim 35
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 35 because
Chun, Han, and Kweon do not teach or suggest “the announcement
including a list of subscribed services provided by the announced WBSS.”
See Appeal Br. 22‒28. In particular, Appellant argues Han teaches a service
provider broadcasts a service advertisement message (WSA) that includes a
network parameter, a service channel, and timing information. Id. at 23.
Appellant argues Han does not teach the WSA message including a list of
subscribed services, as recited in claim 35. Id. at 23‒24. Appellant argues
Chun does not cure the deficiencies of Han because Chun teaches a UE
operating as a RSU informs a network that it will operate as the RSU in the
process of registration to the network. Id. at 24 (citing Chun Fig. 12).
Appellant argues Chun teaches the network transmits RSU configuration
information to the UE with a registration response, but does not teach the
claimed list of subscribed services. Id. (citing Chun ¶ 202).
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Han teaches a WSA message including a network
parameter such as a WBSS recognizer, a service channel, and timing
information for synchronization to proximate vehicular communication
devices. Ans. 9‒10 (citing Han Fig. 1, ¶ 32). The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Han teaches providing multiple services to vehicular communication
Appeal 2020-006247
Application 15/574,012

8

devices, including real-time traffic information, digital maps, movies, and
music. Id. at 10 (citing Han ¶ 2). The Examiner finds, and we agree, Han
teaches “the WSA message receiving vehicle communication device may
receive related service using service channel information and etc. included in
the WSA message thereof.” Id. (citing Han ¶ 4). In other words, Han teaches
the vehicle communication device receives a WSA message that includes
service channel information for the various services offered in the WSA
message. We agree with the Examiner that this disclosure teaches, or at least
suggest, the claimed “list of subscribed services.” Appellant has not
persuasively identified error in these findings.
For these reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 35.
We also sustain the obviousness rejection of dependent claims 36 and 37,
which Appellant argues are patentable for the same reasons. See Appeal
Br. 22‒29.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
23, 32, 35‒
38
103 Chun, Han, Kweon 23, 32, 35‒
38

24, 25 103 Chun, Han, Kweon,
Cherkaoui
24, 25
26‒29 103 Chun, Han, Kweon,
Xu
26‒29
30, 31, 33,
34, 39‒41
103 Chun, Han, Kweon,
Watfa
30, 31, 33,
34, 39‒41

Overall
Outcome
23‒41

Appeal 2020-006247
Application 15/574,012

9

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. § 41.50(f) (2019).

AFFIRMED