Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson (publ)

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 19, 2021

2020000261 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 19, 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.
14/423,360 02/23/2015 Magnus Åström 1009-1304 / P45151 US1 1221
102721 7590 08/19/2021
Murphy, Bilak & Homiller/Ericsson
1255 Crescent Green
Suite 200
Cary, NC 27518
EXAMINER
TACDIRAN, ANDRE GEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/19/2021 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):
official@mbhiplaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAGNUS ASTROM, BENGT LINDOFF, and PER PERSSON
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360
Technology Center 2400

Before JEREMY J. CURCURI, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.

CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 21–40, all the claims under
consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM IN PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. Appeal Brief filed June 18, 2019
(“Appeal Br.”) 2.
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Summary
Appellant’s invention relates to “roaming between multiple mesh
networks.” Spec. 3:3–7.2 Appellant’s Background section explains:
When a node is detached from its home network, it may be
beneficial to, instead of being detached from to its own home
network, connect to a second node in a parallel second network,
i.e. to roam in a roaming network, and thereby still being able to
connect to the home network. However, the home and roaming
networks may belong to different operators, may using different
Radio Access Technologies (RATs), may using different
frequency bands both licensed or unlicensed etc. Furthermore,
there may also be several available roaming networks for the
detached node. This implies that the cost of attaching a node may
differ significantly from one network to another network. Thus
roaming costs may be decided on an individual basis. Therefore
roaming in multiple mesh networks is different compared to
roaming principles in current cellular networks, where a single
RAT is used in each network and there is only a single
connection between a network gateway node and a user
equipment. Hence roaming methods in the current cellular
networks may not be able to handle roaming in multiple mesh
networks.
Id. 2:21–34. According to Appellant, the object of the invention is “an
improved way of roaming between multiple mesh networks” using “a
brokering service for assisting a first node to roam in multiple mesh
networks.” Id. 3:3–7, Fig. 1.

2 In addition to the Appeal Brief noted above, we refer to: (1) the originally
filed Specification filed February 23, 2015 (“Spec.”); (2) the Final Office
Action mailed January 25, 2019 (“Final Act.”); (3) the Examiner’s Answer
mailed August 9, 2019 (“Ans.”); and (4) the Reply Brief filed October 9,
2019 (“Reply Br.”).
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

3
Exemplary Claims
Claims 21 and 31 are independent. Claims 21 and 24–28, reproduced
below with limitations at issue italicized, exemplify the claimed subject
matter:
21. A method for assisting a first node to roam in
multiple mesh networks, wherein the multiple mesh networks
comprise a first network comprising the first node and a first
gateway node, and a second network comprising a second
gateway node, the multiple mesh networks further comprising a
mesh node, wherein the mesh node belongs to either the first
network, the second network or a third network, the method
comprising:
receiving a connection request associated with the first
node and the first network, wherein the connection request is
sent by the first node via the mesh node;
identifying the first network and data requirements for
the first node, in response to receiving the connection request;
negotiating a roaming contract between a first Network
Management Service (NMS) associated with the first network
and at least a second NMS associated with the second network,
wherein said negotiating is based upon the data requirements
for the first node; and
upon establishment of the roaming contract, transmitting
a roaming accept message to at least the second NMS of the
second network.

24. The method of claim 21, wherein negotiating a
roaming contract between the first NMS of the first network and
at least the second NMS of the second network comprises
evaluating and comparing Radio Access Technologies (RATs)
employed in radio communications links between network
nodes and respective traffic loads for the second network.

Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

4
25. The method of claim 21, wherein negotiating a
roaming contract between the first NMS of the first network
and at least the second NMS of the second network comprises
evaluating and comparing metrics for the first network and the
second network.

26. The method of claim 25, wherein the metrics
comprises Air-Time Link Metrics, which are measures of
accumulated utilization of transmission medium for the first
network and/or the second network.

27. The method of claim 25, wherein the metrics
comprises a number of intermediate network nodes needed to
be passed for the first node before reaching the first gateway
and/or the second gateway node.

28. The method of claim 25, wherein the metrics
comprises loads and frequency bands of the first network and
the second network.

Appeal Br. 31–32 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art references:3
Name Reference Date
Park US 2005/0130660 A1 June 16, 2005
Baker US 2007/0005962 A1 Jan. 4, 2007
Joshi US 2008/0040481 A1 Feb. 14, 2008
Kappler US 2010/0316029 A1 Dec. 16, 2010
Fan US 2011/0130118 A1 June 2, 2011
Hu US 2012/0034916 A1 Feb. 9, 2012
Sinha US 2013/0163407 A1 June 27, 2013
Abraham US 2013/0235792 A1 Sept. 12, 2013

3 All citations to the references use the first-named inventor or author only.
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

5
Name Reference Date
Beinas US 2014/0126460 A1 May 8, 2014
Vashi US 2014/0128060 A1 May 8, 2014
Patel US 2015/0065125 A1 Mar. 5, 2015
Bellamkonda US 2015/0256993 A1 Sept. 10, 2015

REJECTIONS
The Examiner makes the following rejections:
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References
Final Act.
21, 25, 31, 35 103 Joshi, Hu 2
21, 25, 31, 35 103 Hu, Abraham, Joshi 4
21, 25, 31, 35 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi 8
23, 29, 33, 39 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Patel
10
24, 34 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Patel, Vashi
12
27, 37 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Park
13
26, 36 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Sinha
14
28, 38 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Bellamkonda
14
30, 40 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Baker
15
22, 32 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Kappler, Fan
16

OPINION
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant and in light of Appellant’s arguments and evidence.
Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential).
Arguments not made are waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2018).
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

6
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 21 over Joshi and Hu
The Examiner finds the combination of Joshi and Hu teaches or
suggests all of the limitations of claim 21, and in particular finds Joshi
teaches “receiving a connection request associated with a first node and a
first network, wherein the connection request is sent by the first node via the
mesh node.” Final Act. 5. Of particular relevance, the Examiner finds that
Joshi teaches:
[A] roaming mobile device requesting service from foreign
provider, e.g., mobile device 519 of ISP A via mobile device 539
requesting service from ISP B (FIGs. 5, 6; para. 0048-0051).
That is, in the context of this embodiment Joshi is describing a
roaming user that enters and utilizes a visiting network for
services, a connection negotiation takes place in order for the
roaming user to connect to the visiting network. Said negotiation
would include a request from the visiting user. Therefore Joshi
implicitly teaches a connection request from mobile device 519
to ISP B using mobile device 539 as a relay.
Final Act. 3 (citing Joshi ¶¶ 48–51, Figs. 5, 6). The Examiner determines
that sufficient motivation existed to combine the teachings of the references
“in order to consolidate QoS/SLA management requirements among
different networks.” Id. at 5 (citing Hu ¶¶ 4–8).
Appellant acknowledges that Joshi’s mobile device 519 is a mesh
node. See Appeal Br. 8 (“it may be assumed that mobile device 519 can be
considered a ‘mesh node.’).” Appellant argues, however, that “Joshi’s
mobile device 519 requests support, so that it can receive services from ISP
B, but the request itself does not flow through to ISP B.” Therefore,
according to Appellant, Joshi describes “how roaming mobile devices are
provided with services and indicate that one mobile device requests
communication support from another mobile device, but Joshi does not
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

7
describe anything like a ‘connection request’ that is received from the
roaming device via a mesh node.” Appeal Br. 7. Appellant also argues that
“Joshi further does not suggest any need for any such connection request to
pass through device 519” to ISP B, because in Joshi “the providing of the
service is managed by device 519.” Id. at 9.
The Examiner disagrees, finding that “Joshi explicitly states with
respect to ISP A, mobile device of ISP B can request communication support
through (via) a mobile device ISP A in order to use the services of ISP A
through mobile device 519.” Ans. 3 (citing Joshi ¶ 51, Fig. 6).
Appellant fails to show reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection.
The rejection discusses two different embodiments of Joshi; the first
disclosed at Figure 5 and the second at Figure 6. Final Act. 3. In the first
embodiment, mobile device 519, which is a subscriber of ISP A, provides
communication assistance to mobile device 539, which is a subscriber of ISP
B, for connecting to ISP B. Joshi ¶¶ 49–50, Fig. 5. In the second
embodiment, ad hoc network 500 “provid[es] communication support to
mobile devices outside an area of their service provider.” Joshi ¶ 51, Fig. 6.
Of particular relevance, mobile device 539, which is a subscriber of ISP B,
obtains the services of ISP A through mobile device 519:
Briefly, the ad hoc network 500 illustrates a scenario wherein a
mobile device of ISP B requests communication support through
a mobile device of ISP A. For example, mobile device 519 is a
subscriber to ISP A, and is in proximity of wireless router 511 to
receive connectivity from Access Point 510 of ISP A. Mobile
device 539, belonging to ISP B, is outside of range from ISP B,
though is in proximity to mobile device 510. In this scenario,
mobile device 519 can provide communication assistance to
mobile device 539. This allows mobile device 539 to use services
of ISP A while hopping through mobile device 519 of ISP A.
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

8
Joshi ¶ 51.
The Examiner correctly finds that mobile device 539’s use of ISP A’s
services in the second embodiment teaches or at least suggests that ISP A
receives a connection request from mobile device 519 using mobile device
539 as a relay. Ans. 3–4 (citing ¶ 51, Fig. 6); Final Act. 3. Appellant’s
arguments that Joshi’s mobile device 519 requests do not flow through to
ISP B, however, are directed toward Joshi’s first embodiment and
consequently fail to sufficiently address the Examiner’s findings regarding
Joshi’s second embodiment. Appeal Br. 7–8 (citing Joshi ¶¶ 48–50).
Next, Appellant notes that “Joshi’s paragraph 0051 does mention a
‘request,’ stating that device 539 ‘requests communication support through a
mobile device of ISP A,’ i.e., device 519.” Appeal Br. 8. Appellant,
however, argues that Joshi’s second embodiment does not indicate the
request for communication support from 539 to 519 is relayed to the
network by device 519. Id. at 11 (citing Joshi ¶ 51).
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive. We agree with the Examiner
that, in discussing that device 539 receives services from ISP A through
device 519, Joshi implicitly teaches that ISP A receives a connection request
because a connection would be required to receive such services. For
example, the Examiner finds that “Joshi explicitly states with respect to ISP
A, mobile device of ISP B can request communication support through (via)
a mobile device ISP A in order to use the services of ISP A through mobile
device 519” and that “[t]his is a technique in the art commonly known [as]
‘roaming’ where a mobile user can . . . send and receive data . . . when
travelling outside the geographical coverage area of the home network, by
means of using a visited network.” Ans. 3–4 (citing Joshi ¶ 51, Fig. 6). We
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

9
agree with the Examiner’s finding that for a “roaming user that enters and
utilizes a visiting network for services, a connection negotiation takes place
in order for the roaming user to connect to the visiting network” and the
“negotiation would include a [connection] request from the visiting user.”
Final Act. 3. As the Examiner explains, “the request for communication
support . . . functions and acts in an equivalent manner as the claimed
connection request.” Ans. 4.
Appellant further argues that the Examiner’s “analysis appears to
conclude with a finding of ‘inherency,’ i.e., with a finding that a ‘connection
request’ from mobile device 519 to ISP B is inherent in Joshi’s disclosure”
and that the Examiner fails to meet the finding required for inherency by not
demonstration that “the missing element necessarily follows from the
disclosed subject matter.” Appeal. Br. 12.
This argument is unpersuasive. We disagree with Appellant that the
Examiner is relying on inherency in finding that Joshi teaches or suggests
receiving a connection request. Rather, the Examiner finds that a connection
request is taught or suggested because Joshi discusses that device 539
receives services from ISP A, which implicitly requires a connection.
“[T]he question under [35 U.S.C. § 103] is not merely what the references
expressly teach but what they would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made.” Merck & Co. v. Biocraft
Laboratories, Inc., 874 F.2d 804, 807 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (emphasis added)
(quoting In re Lamberti, 545 F.2d 747, 750 (Fed. Cir. 1976); see also MPEP
§ 2123. We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Joshi’s device 539
receipt of services from ISP A through device 519 teaches or at least
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

10
suggests receiving a connection request associated with ISP A via device
519. Ans. 3–4 (citing Joshi ¶ 51, Fig. 6).
Appellant next argues that Joshi does not indicate that the
communication request is relayed to the network by device 519:
Rather, because Joshi describes that device 519 can monitor the
resources used by device 539 and can even have device 539 pay
for those services via a peer-to-peer micro-payment, there is no
reason to believe that there is any need for this request to flow up
to the network, through device 519. In other words, the “request”
mentioned by Joshi is nothing more than a request to the peer
device for communications support.
Id. at 11 (citing Joshi ¶ 51).
The Examiner responds by noting that “the Brief refers to a particular
feature the intermediate node may perform (i.e., additional functionality) but
do not necessarily negate or is in lieu of ‘requesting communication support
through a mobile device of ISP A.’” Ans. 4 (citing Joshi ¶ 51).
We agree with the Examiner. Even though “Joshi describes that
device 519 can monitor the resources used by device 539 and can even have
device 539 pay for those services,” this does not negate the Examiner’s
finding that Joshi’s device 539 receives services from ISP A through device
519 and that this teaches or at least suggests “receiving a connection
request,” as recited in claim 21.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Joshi and Hu, as well as the rejections of
independent claim 31 and dependent claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 39
and 40, which Appellant does not argue separately with particularity.
Appeal Br. 13.
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

11
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 21 over Hu, Abraham, and Joshi
The Examiner finds the combination of Hu and Joshi teaches or
suggests most of the limitations of claim 21, and in particular finds “Hu
teaches receiving a connection request associated with a first node and a first
network.” Final Act. 5 (emphasis omitted). The Examiner notes that “Hu
does not explicitly teach,” but relies on Abraham to teach “wherein the
connection request is sent by the first node via a mesh node.” Id. at 6 (citing
Abraham ¶¶ 70–77, 83, 84, 86–90, 105, 109–111, Figs. 3A, 10, 14–16, 28).
The Examiner determines that sufficient motivation existed to combine the
teachings of the references. Id. at 7.
Appellant argues that “Abraham’s relays are not ‘equivalent’ to a
mesh node in any reasonable sense” and that “Abraham actually discloses
nothing at all about mesh nodes.” Appeal Br. 14. Appellant points to
Wikipedia and argues that a “mesh network” is “a local network topology in
which the infrastructure nodes (i.e. bridges, switches and other
infrastructure devices) connect directly, dynamically and non-hierarchically
to as many other nodes as possible and cooperate with one another to
efficiently route data from/to clients.” Id. at 15. Appellant argues that rather
than being connected “directly, dynamically, and non-hierarchically to as
many other nodes as possible,” that Abraham’s relays simply supplement the
hierarchical nature of an access-point-based network. Id. at 16 (citing
Abraham Figs. 3A, 3C).
Because the argument turns on the meaning of “mesh node,” we must
interpret this term before we compare the claim to the cited prior art. During
prosecution, claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation in
light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

12
the art. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Appellant appears to argue that we should interpret mesh node
narrowly to mean a node that “connect[s] directly, dynamically and non-
hierarchically to as many other nodes as possible.” Appeal Br. 15; Reply
Br. 6–7. Appellant does not argue support for this interpretation in the claim
language. Id. To the contrary, as the Examiner notes, Appellant’s
interpretation relies on limitations not recited in the claim. Ans. 8.
Moreover, Appellant does not explain how the Specification supports this
construction as the broadest reasonable interpretation. We agree with the
Examiner that viewing the claim in light of the Specification requires a
broader reading of mesh node. The Examiner finds (Ans. 6) that according
to the Specification, the claimed “first and second networks can correspond
to cellular provider networks and the gateway nodes corresponds to base
stations/eNBs, as discussed in the Specification”:
The first, second and third networks 110, 120, 130 may be
various networks, e.g. mesh D2D networks, sensor or meter
networks, WLAN, any 2G/3G/4G/5G networks, LTE networks,
Wideband CDMA (WCDMA), Wimax or combinations of more
than one type. Communications between respective network
nodes in the mesh network may be of different RATs, and the
radio communication may use different frequency bands both
licensed, e.g. LTE D2D communications may be used between
the network nodes, or unlicensed, e.g. WIFI direct, Bluetooth
may be used between the network nodes, or even licensed
assisted LTE D2D may be used between the network nodes, i.e.
LTE is used in unlicensed, for instance, Industrial, Scientific and
Medical (ISM) radio bands, which is possible supported by an
LTE primary carrier in licensed spectrum. In all cases, however,
it may assume that each mesh network 110, 120, 130 comprises
a gateway node, e.g. the network node 113 in the first network
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

13
110, the network node 123 in the second network 120 and the
network node 133 in the third network 130 may be gateway
nodes. The gateway node is a network node, e.g. eNode B in LTE
networks, Base Station (BS) in cellular networks or Access Point
(AP) in WLAN, with connection to respective servers via
Internet. The other network nodes in the mesh network, e.g. the
network nodes 111, 112 and 114 in the first network 110, the
network nodes 121, 122 and 124 in the second network 120 and
the network nodes 131, 132 and 134 in the third network 130
may, e.g. be any types of device with wireless communication
capability, or any other radio network units capable to
communicate over a radio link in a wireless communications
network, e.g. a mobile terminal or station, a wireless terminal, a
user equipment, a mobile phone, a computer such as e.g. a laptop,
a Personal Digital Assistants (PDAs) or a tablet computer etc.
Spec. 5:7–29. The portion of the Specification cited by the Examiner
explains that the nodes the claimed mesh network is comprised of include
“any types of device with wireless communication capability” such as
mobile phones and that these devices may implement a variety of wireless
standards. Id. The claimed networks may also be implemented using a
variety of standards and in a variety of configurations including “mesh D2D
networks, sensor or meter networks, WLAN, any 2G/3G/4G/5G networks,
LTE networks, Wideband CDMA (WCDMA), Wimax or combinations of
more than one type.” Id. We, therefore, agree with the Examiner that,
according to the Specification, the claimed multiple mesh networks “can
comprise a first and second network including cellular and hierarchical
functionality” and that a mesh node may include “any types of device with
wireless communication capability” that forwards a connection request
received from another node. Ans. 7, Spec. 5:7–29; see Spec. 6:24–26 (“The
connection request is therefore sent by the first node 111 via the mesh node
140.”).
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

14
Absent evidence that the Examiner’s claim interpretation is
inconsistent with the Specification, even if Appellant can point to extrinsic
definitions or usages that conform to their interpretation, this does not make
the PTO’s interpretation unreasonable when the PTO can point to other
sources that support its interpretation. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1056
(Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Smith International 871 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir.
2017).
Turning back to the Examiner’s findings, based on the interpretation
of a mesh node discussed above, we agree with the Examiner that Abraham
teaches the limitation at issue. Abraham discusses that “either AP 104, STA
106, relay 320, or association relay 330 may serve as transmitter or receiver
devices.” Abraham ¶ 68. Abraham further discloses that “a relay, may be
utilized to form a bridge between the AP 104 and the STA 106 such that
they can communicate properly with each other.” Id. ¶ 69. We, therefore,
agree with the Examiner’s finding that “[r]elays and associated relays can
register or associate with one or more APs and/or service one or more STAs,
therefore is considered to function and act in an equivalent [manner] as a
mesh node.” Final Act. 6 (citing Abraham ¶¶ 70–77, 83, 84, 86–90, 105,
109–111, Figs. 3A, 10, 14–16, 28.
Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as
obvious over the combined teachings of Hu, Abraham, and Joshi, as well as
the rejections of independent claim 31 and dependent claims 22, 23, 25, 29,
30, 32, 33, 35, 39 and 40, which Appellant does not argue separately with
particularity. Appeal Br. 13, 20.
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

15
Obviousness Rejection of Claim 21 over Hu, Bienas, and Joshi
The Examiner finds the combination of Hu and Joshi teaches or
suggests most of the limitations of claim 21, and in particular finds Hu
teaches “receiving a connection request associated with a first node and a
first network.” Final Act. 8 (citing Hu ¶¶ 33–34, 57, Fig. 5). The Examiner
notes that “Hu does not explicitly teach,” but relies on Bienas to teach,
“wherein the connection request is sent by the first node via a mesh node.”
Id. at 9 (citing Bienas ¶¶ 3, 73–76, 96–105, Fig. 4) (emphasis omitted). The
Examiner determines that sufficient motivation existed to combine the
teachings of the references. Id. at 10.
Appellant argues that in the obviousness rejection of claim 21 over
Hu, Bienas, and Joshi, the “Final Office Action makes a similar error [with
Bienas] as it did with Abraham” because Figure 4 of Bienas “illustrates the
same sort of hierarchical network topology shown in Abraham.” Appeal
Br. 21. According to Appellant, “Bienas’s relay device 402 . . . is acting as a
relay node in a conventional, hierarchical cellular network, and is not acting
as a mesh node.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive. Similar to the arguments
relating to Abraham’s relays, this argument turns on the meaning of “mesh
node.” As discussed above, we reject Appellant’s proposed narrow
interpretation of mesh network and mesh node based on Wikipedia
descriptions. Instead, we agree with the Examiner that, according to the
Specification, the claimed multiple mesh networks “can comprise a first and
second network including cellular and hierarchical functionality” and that a
mesh node may include “any types of device with wireless communication
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

16
capability” that forwards a connection request received from another node.
Ans. 7, Spec. 5:7–29, 6:24–26.
Based on this interpretation of a mesh node, we agree with the
Examiner that Bienas teaches the limitation at issue. Bienas discusses a
“relay device 402 that is configured to support a plurality of RATs” (radio
access technologies) and that “may be configured to communicate (e.g.
exchange data and/or messages) with other devices (e.g. UEs and/or one or
more base stations) using at least one cellular network technology (e.g. LTE
and/or UMTS and/or GSM and/or CDMA2000)”. Bienas ¶¶ 74, 75.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner’s finding that Bienas’ “relay
device can be a UE that communicates with multiple devices using different
RATs and therefore acts and function in an equivalent manner as the
claimed mesh node.” Final Act. 9 (citing Bienas ¶¶ 3, 73–76, 96–105,
Fig. 4).
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 21 as obvious
over the combined teachings of Hu, Bienas, and Joshi, as well as the
rejections of independent claim 31 and dependent claims 22, 23, 25, 29, 30,
32, 33, 35, 39, and 40, which Appellant does not argue separately with
particularity. Appeal Br. 21–22.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 24 and 34
The Examiner rejects claims 24 and 34 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Hu, Bienas, Joshi, Patel, and Vashi. The Examiner relies on
Patel to teach or suggest that “negotiating a roaming contract between the
first NMS of the first network and at least the second NMS of the second
network comprises evaluating and comparing . . . traffic loads for the second
network,” as in claim 24. Final Act. 12 (citing Patel ¶¶ 56–57, Fig. 2B).
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

17
The cited portions of Patel describes evaluating and comparing a
volume of roaming traffic in negotiating a roaming contract. Final Act. 12
(citing Patel ¶ 57). In particular, Patel discloses that “a roaming agreement
may specify that an operator commit to steer an agreed volume of roaming
traffic to a preferred partner and the preferred partner may give a discount on
roaming prices.” Patel ¶ 57.
Appellant argues that Patel’s negotiating based on a volume of traffic
is different than negotiating based on a traffic load as claimed. Reply Br. 9.
According to Appellant, “A volume of traffic is simply that - a volume, or a
total quantity” while “[a] traffic load, on the other hand, is a measure of how
heavily the network’s resources are being taxed at a given time, i.e., what
portion of its capacity is currently being utilized.” Reply Br. 9. We
understand Appellant to argue that the Examiner’s interpretation of the
claimed traffic load to encompass a volume of traffic is unreasonably broad.
This argument is unpersuasive. During prosecution before the PTO,
claim terms are to be given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d
at 1364. Appellant fails to provide evidence that the Specification
specifically defines a “traffic load” or that the term is used in the
Specification in a manner inconsistent with the Examiner’s findings from
Patel. In re Smith International Inc., 871 F.3d 1375, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2017)
citing In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
We, therefore, agree with the Examiner’s finding that Patel’s volume
of traffic teaches a traffic load, as claimed and, thus, Patel teaches the
limitation at issue. We sustain the rejection of claim 24 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Hu, Bienas, Joshi, Patel, and Vashi, as well as the
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

18
rejection of dependent claim 34, which Appellant does not argue separately
with particularity. Appeal Br. 12–13.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 27 and 37
The Examiner rejects claims 27 and 37 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Hu, Bienas, Joshi, and Park. The Examiner relies on Park to
teach or suggest that “the metrics comprises a number of intermediate
network nodes needed to be passed for the first node before reaching the first
gateway and/or the second gateway node,” as recited in claim 27. Final
Act. 12 (citing Patel ¶¶ 56–57, Fig. 2B). The Examiner determines it would
have been obvious . . . to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by
Hu, Bienas and Joshi with the embodiment(s) disclosed by Park . . . to
provide improved methods of handoff when a mobile device is roaming.”
Final Act. 13–14 (citing Park ¶¶ 5–7).
Appellant agrees with the Examiner’s finding that “Park discloses that
a base station (BS) evaluates a ‘number of hops between the first BS and the
second BS.’” Appeal Br. 25. Appellant argues, however, that “[n]one of
this has any relationship or relevance to any of the teachings of Hu” and the
“Final Office Action’s rationale . . . makes no sense in the contexts of Hu.”
Id.
Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive for lack of evidence and
persuasive reasoning. Appellant argues that Park is directed to a very
different endeavor than Hu and “nothing in the combination of Joshi, Hu,
and Park suggests that the negotiation of a roaming contract between first
and second networks should be based on or other involve an evaluation of ‘a
number of hops.’” Id. at 26 (citing Park Abstract). As the Examiner notes,
however, “all of the references are related to the communications and
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

19
networking arts.” Ans. 9. Moreover, Appellant’s arguments do not
specifically address the motivation provided by the Examiner; “to provide
improved methods of handoff when a mobile device is roaming.” Nor does
Appellant specifically address the portions of Park relied upon by the
Examiner. Namely, Appellant does not explain why Park’s hop technique
would not have resulted in improved methods of handoff when a mobile
device is roaming or why the technique is inapplicable to Hu’s managing of
services in a roaming environment. Hu ¶¶ 1, 7.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner failed to support the
obviousness rejection with sufficient motivation to combine the references.
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 27 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Hu, Bienas, Joshi, and Park, as well as the rejection
of dependent claim 37, which Appellant does not argue separately with
particularity. Appeal Br. 24–26.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 26 and 36
The Examiner rejects claims 26 and 36 as obvious over the combined
teachings of Hu, Bienas, Joshi, and Sinha. Final Act. 14. The Examiner
relies on Sinha to teach or suggest comparing “Air-Time Link Metrics,” as
recited in claim 26. Id. (citing Sinha ¶¶ 48–55). The Examiner determines
“it would have been obvious . . . to have modified the system/techniques
disclosed by Hu, Bienas and Joshi with the embodiment(s) disclosed by
Sinha . . . to provide a method in identifying critical nodes and/or identifying
alternative routes in a wireless mesh network.” Id. (citing Sinha ¶¶ 1–3, 90).
Appellant concedes that “Sinha discloses the computation of ‘Air-
Time Link Metrics’” but argues that “Sinha describes this in the context of a
method for ‘identifying critical network elements’ in a mesh network.”
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

20
According to Appellant “[n]othing in Sinha . . . suggests that these metrics
could or should be evaluated as part of negotiating a roaming agreement
between first and second networks.” Appeal Br. 27.
The Examiner responds by noting that Appellant improperly “argues
the combination of references is deficient because there is no motivation for
particularly combining the references with respect to two specific
embodiments” and in turn fails to specifically respond to the motivation
cited in the rejection. Ans. 10.
We see no reversible error in the Examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness. As the Examiner notes (id.), Appellant’s argument that
“[n]othing in Sinha . . . suggests that these metrics could or should be
evaluated as part of negotiating a roaming agreement” (Appeal Br. 26–27;
Reply Br. 13–15) does not address the Examiner’s rationale to combine, or
the specific portions of Sinha relied upon by the Examiner for that rationale.
For example, one of the paragraphs from Sinha cited by the Examiner
discloses that Air-Time Link Metrics are “used to determine the quality of
each link within the mesh. It is the amount of channel resources consumed
by transmitting the frame over a particular link.” Sinha ¶ 48. Appellant fails
to demonstrate why a metric used to determine the quality of each link
within the mesh would not have been relevant to negotiating a roaming
contract between networks. Moreover, Appellant fails to show why the cited
rationale of “identifying alternative routes in a wireless mesh network”
would not have been relevant to the other references, all of which relate to
networking.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner failed to support the
obviousness rejection with sufficient motivation to combine the references.
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

21
We, therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 26 as obvious over the
combined teachings of Hu, Bienas, Joshi, and Sinha, as well as the rejection
of dependent claim 36, which Appellant does not argue separately with
particularity. Appeal Br. 26–27.
Obviousness Rejection of Dependent Claims 28 and 38
Dependent claim 25 recites that “negotiating a roaming contract
between the first NMS of the first network and at least the second NMS of
the second network comprises evaluating and comparing metrics for the first
network and the second network” and claim 28, which depends from claim
25, recites “the metrics comprises loads and frequency bands of the first
network and the second network.” Appeal Br. 32.
The Examiner relies on the combined teachings of Hu and
Bellamkonda to teach or suggest the limitation at issue, finding that in each
of the references “QoS capability can include available bandwidth. Final
Act. 15 (citing Hu ¶¶ 39–44, Fig. 1, Bellamkonda ¶¶3, 39–44, Fig. 1.).
Appellant argues that “the Final Office Action overlooks that claim 28
specifies the evaluation of loads for the first and second networks, in
addition to the frequency bands.” Appeal Br. 28. According to Appellant,
“[w]hile the Final Office Action indicates that Bellamkonda refers to
‘frequency band information,’ the Final Office Action completely ignores
the issue of whether the combination of references discloses or suggests the
evaluation and comparing of loads for first and second networks.” Id.
The Examiner responds that “the Brief appears to argue that the
rejection lacks explanation of motivation for combining the references.”
Ans. 10 (citing Sinha ¶¶ 1–3, 90). However, the Examiner does not respond
to the argument that the cited combination does not teach or suggest “the
Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

22
evaluation and comparing of loads for first and second networks.” Reply
Br. 16. The Examiner, therefore, has not established that the cited
combination of references teaches or suggests evaluating and comparing
metrics in the form of loads of the first and second networks.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claims 28 and 38 as obvious over the combined teachings of Hu, Bienas,
Joshi, and Bellamkonda.
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of independent claims 21 and 31.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of these claims, as well as
the rejections of dependent claims 22–27, 29, 30, 32–37, 39, and 40.
Appellant has persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s obviousness
rejections of dependent claims 28 and 38 and we, therefore, do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35
U.S.C. §
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
21, 25,
31, 35
103 Joshi, Hu 21, 25, 31,
35

21, 25,
31, 35
103 Hu, Abraham, Joshi 21, 25, 31,
35

21, 25,
31, 35
103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi 21, 25, 31,
35

23, 29,
33, 39
103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi, Patel 23, 29, 33,
39

Appeal 2020-000261
Application 14/423,360

23
24, 34 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Patel, Vashi
24, 34
27, 37 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi, Park 27, 37
26, 36 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Sinha
26, 36
28, 38 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Bellamkonda
28, 38
30, 40 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Baker
30, 40
22, 32 103 Hu, Bienas, Joshi,
Kappler, Fan
22, 32
Overall
Outcome
21–27,
29–37, 39,
40
28, 38
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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) (2018).
AFFIRMED IN PART