Ex Parte Abraham et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2016

13098089 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2016)

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.
13/098,089 04/29/2011 Santosh Paul Abraham 101814 7907
23696 7590 11/30/2016
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
BROCKMAN, ANGEL T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2463
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2016 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SANTOSH PAUL ABRAHAM, SIMONE MERLIN,
VINCENT KNOWLES JONES, MAARTEN MENZO WENTINK,
and HEMANTH SAMPATH 1
Appeal 2016-002264
Application 13/098,089
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1—50.2 We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We reverse.
1 Appellants identify QUALCOMM Incorporated as the real party in
interest. Appeal Brief 3.
2 In this Decision, we refer to Appellants’ Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed
June 25, 2015); Appellants’ Reply Brief (“Reply Br.,” filed Dec. 18, 2015);
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.,” mailed Jan. 9, 2015); the Examiner’s
Answer (“Ans.,” mailed on Nov. 25, 2015); and the original Specification
(“Spec.,” filed Apr. 29, 2011).
Appeal 2016-002264
Application 13/098,089
THE INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to adapting a contention window size
in response to detecting a multiuser transmission suffered a collision.
Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative:
1. A method, performed by an apparatus, for wireless
communications, comprising:
simultaneously transmitting a first plurality of packets to a
plurality of apparatuses in a first transmission;
determining that at least one of a plurality of acknowledgments
corresponding to the first plurality of packets was not received from at
least one of the plurality of apparatuses; and
increasing a contention window (CW) for a backoff counter
based on the determination.
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4, 13, 14, 17—20, 29, 30, 33—36, 45, 46, and 50 are rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Haartsen
(US 2008/0293366 Al; Nov. 27, 2008). Final Act. 2^1.3
Claims 5, 7, 9, 21, 23, 25, 37, 39, and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being obvious over Haartsen and Chu et al. (US 2010/0165907
Al; July 1, 2010) (“Chu”). Final Act. ^U6.4
3 Claims 9, 25, 39, and 41 are mistakenly included in the header for this
rejection. Final Act. 3. Further, claim 29 is mistakenly omitted from the
header for this rejection, but otherwise appears in the body of the rejection.
Id. We find the Examiner’s typographical errors to be harmless.
4 Claims 9, 25, 39, and 41 are mistakenly omitted from the header for this
rejection, but otherwise appears in the body of the rejection. Final Act. 4—5.
2
Appeal 2016-002264
Application 13/098,089
Claims 6, 10, 11, 16, 22, 26, 27, 32, 38, 40, 42, 43, 48, and 49 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being obvious over Haartsen and
Banerjee et al. (US 2010/0284380 Al; Nov. 11, 2010) (“Banerjee”).
Final Act. 6—9.
Claims 8 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Haartsen, Chu, and Banerjee. Final Act. 9—10.
Claims 12, 28, and 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Haartsen, Banerjee, and King et al. (US 2005/0270977 Al;
Dec. 8, 2005) (“King”). Final Act. 10.
Claims 15, 31, and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Haartsen, Banerjee, and Deb et al. (US 2009/0303908 Al;
Dec. 10, 2009) (“Deb”). Final Act. 10-11.
ANALYSIS
Claim 1 is directed to a method performed by an apparatus. The
method comprises, inter alia, “transmitting a first plurality of packets to a
plurality of apparatuses” and “increasing a contention window (CW).” All
other independent claims include similar recitations.
The Examiner finds Haartsen discloses, inter alia, an apparatus that
performs both the transmission of a first plurality of packets to a plurality of
apparatuses and the increase of a CW. Final Act. 2—3 (citing Haartsen || 63,
67, 68, 74, and 75); see also Adv. Act. 2 (citing Haartsen || 76, 77) and
Ans. 3.
Further, claim 29 is mistakenly included in the header for this rejection. Id.
at 4. We find the Examiner’s typographical errors to be harmless.
3
Appeal 2016-002264
Application 13/098,089
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Haartsen discloses
an apparatus that performs both the transmission of a first plurality of
packets to a plurality of apparatuses and the increase of a CW. App. Br. 7—
9. In particular, Appellants argue if the network node (3) of Haartsen is the
claimed apparatus, the network node does not both transmit a plurality of
packets to a plurality of apparatuses and increase a CW. Id. at 7—8 (citing
Haartsen 176). Appellants further argue that if either of the apparatuses (1)
or (2) of Haartsen are the claimed apparatus, the apparatuses (1) or (2) do
not transmit a first plurality of packets “to a plurality apparatuses,” as
claimed, because each of the apparatuses (1) or (2) communicate with a
single network node (3). Id. at 9 (citing Haartsen Figure 1).
We agree with Appellants. A claim is anticipated only if each and
every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or
inherently described, in a single prior art reference. Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v.
Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Here, we find
the Examiner has failed to adequately explain how, nor are we able to
ascertain that, Haartsen discloses an apparatus that performs both the
transmission of a first plurality of packets to a plurality of apparatuses and
the increase of a CW. In particular, Haartsen discloses a network node that
transmits a plurality of beacon messages to communication apparatuses.
Haartsen || 63, 67, and 68. Additionally, Haartsen discloses communication
apparatuses that increase a CW value. Haartsen || 74—77. However, neither
the network node nor the communication apparatuses performs both the
transmission of a first plurality of packets to a plurality of apparatuses and
the increasing of a CW.
4
Appeal 2016-002264
Application 13/098,089
In view of the above conclusion and on the record before us, we find
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1, 17, 33, 49, and 50, and
all dependent claims therefrom.
Appellants raise additional issues in the Briefs. However, we are
persuaded of error with regard to the identified issue discussed supra, which
is dispositive as to the rejection of all claims. We, therefore, do not reach
the additional issues.
DECISION5
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—50.
REVERSED
5 In the event of further prosecution, we note that claim 49 is directed to “[a]
computer-program product for wireless communications, comprising a
computer-readable storage device comprising instructions executable to”
perform the method—steps as recited in claim 49. The Examiner is invited to
determine whether claim 49 comports with the requirements 35 U.S.C.
§101. See Exparte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857, 1862 (PTAB 2013)
(precedential-in-part) (machine-readable storage medium nonstatutory where
Specification silent as to meaning).
5