Ex Parte Ayyagari et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 4, 2009

10404957 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 4, 2009)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte DEEPAK AYYAGARI and TOMOHIKO OZEKI
____________________

Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Decided:1 February 4, 2009
____________________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JEAN R. HOMERE and
THU A. DANG, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-14. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 CFR § 1.304, begins to run from the decided date
shown on this page of the decision. The time period does not run from the
Mail Date (paper delivery) or Notification Date (electronic delivery).
Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
2
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to a point-to-point
and/or point-to-multipoint networks with a centralized controller, and to
allow broadcast and multicast in such networks (Spec., 1, ll. 9-11).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below:
1. A method of transmitting data and for determining that the
transmitted data was probably received, the method comprising:

transmitting data from a source device over a contention channel in a
centralized network to a plurality of devices on the channel, and to a central
coordinator connected to said channel; and

determining that said data was probably received by said devices by
waiting for a data acknowledgment signal from the central coordinator as an
indicator of successful reception of the data by said central coordinator and
also as an indication that the data was probably received by said devices to
which the data was transmitted.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Agarwal US 6,075,779 Jun. 13, 2000
Wang US 6,606,309 B1 Aug. 12, 2003
Hulyalkar US 6,751,196 B1 Jun. 15, 2004

Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
3
Claims 1-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
teachings of Agarwal in view of Hulyalkar; and
Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the
teachings of Agarwal, in view of Hulyalkar and Wang.
We affirm.

II. ISSUE
The issue is whether Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred
in finding that claims 1-14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). In
particular, the issue turns on whether Hulyalkar, when combined with
Agarwal, teaches or suggests “determining that said data was probably
received by said devices by waiting for a data acknowledgment signal from
the central coordinator as an indicator of successful reception of the data by
said central coordinator and also as an indication that the data was probably
received by said devices to which the data was transmitted” (claim 1).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Hulyalkar
1. Hulyalkar discloses a centralized controller 8 that is able to
communicate with wireless terminals 1, 2, 3, etc., wherein each of the
Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
4
wireless terminals 1, 2, 3, etc. communicates with each other terminal
to transmit messages to each other (col. 3, ll. 44-50; Fig. 2a).
2. If station 2 has the capability of providing central controller services,
the network can be reconfigured to replace station 8 with station 2 as
the central controller (col. 6, ll. 33-35; Fig. 2a).
3. In the wireless network of Hulyalkar, the transmissions are broadcast,
and are receivable by any station within some viable range of the
transmitter, wherein every other station on the network can assess the
quality of reception of that transmission, even if the message is not
intended to be received by each of these stations (col. 3, l. 61 to col. 4,
l. 1).
4. Hulyalkar discloses ACK/NAK (Acknowledged/Not-Acknowledged)
signaling (col. 7, ll. 26-28).
5. The intended receiver response with an Acknowledge signal, directly
or via the centralized controller (col. 7, ll. 28-30).

IV. PRINCIPLES OF LAW
35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when “the differences
between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are
such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at
the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in
the art to which said subject matter pertains.”

KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1734 (2007).
Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
5
In KSR, the Supreme Court emphasized "the need for caution in
granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior
art." KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1739 (citing Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,
12 (1966)). The Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that
"[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is
likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Id.
“Under the correct analysis, any need or problem known in the field and
addressed by the patent can provide a reason for combining the elements in
the manner claimed.” Id. at 1742. The Court noted that “[c]ommon sense
teaches . . . that familiar items may have obvious uses beyond their primary
purposes, and in many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the
teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. “A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” Id.
The Federal Circuit recently recognized that "[a]n obviousness
determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the
consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those
skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been
obvious where others would not." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 127 S. Ct. 1727,
1739 (2007)). The Federal Circuit relied in part on the fact that Leapfrog
had presented no evidence that the inclusion of a reader in the combined
device was "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
6
art” or “represented an unobvious step over the prior art.” Id. at 1162 (citing
KSR, 127 S. Ct. at 1740-41).

Claim Construction
"Our analysis begins with construing the claim limitations at issue."
Ex Parte Filatov, No. 2006-1160, 2007 WL 1317144, at *2 (BPAI 2007).
"[T]he PTO gives claims their 'broadest reasonable interpretation.'"
In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (quoting In re Hyatt, 211
F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). "Moreover, limitations are not to be read
into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181,
1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (citing In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir.
1989)).

V. ANALYSIS
Combinability under 35 U.S.C. § 103
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to combine the teachings of the cited references. The
Appellants provide no argument to dispute that the Examiner has correctly
shown that it would have been obvious to combine the references. Thus, we
deem those arguments waived.

Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
7
Claims 1-10
Appellants do not provide separate arguments with respect to the
rejection of independent claims 1-10. Therefore, we select independent
claim 1 as being representative of the cited claims.
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
Appellants argue that “[i]n Hulyalkar when a device sends data to
another device on the network, the data is not sent to the central coordinator
as is the situation in applicants’ system” (App. Br. 8). We note that such
argument that Hulyalkar does not disclose that “when a device sends data to
another device on the network, the data is not sent to the central coordinator
as in the situation in applicants’ system” (emphasis added) is not
commensurate with the express language of the claimed invention. That is,
Appellants’ independent claim 1 does not recite any such “when” sending
step and thus such argument is not commensurate with the invention that is
claimed.
Furthermore, the Examiner finds that “data communicated between
stations would also have to be transmitted to the central[sic] coordinator in
order to be relayed to the subsequent destination station” (Ans. 12).
Accordingly, an issue we address on appeal is whether Hulyalkar, when
combined with Agarwal, teaches or suggests “determining that said data was
probably received by said devices by waiting for a data acknowledgment
signal from the central coordinator as an indicator of successful reception of
Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
8
the data by said central coordinator and also as an indication that the data
was probably received by said devices to which the data was transmitted”
(Claim 1).
We give the claims their broadest reasonable interpretation. See In re
Bigio at 1324. Appellants’ independent claim 1 simply does not place any
limitation on what the term “data” is to be, is to represent, or is to mean,
other than that the data is received by the central coordinator and is
“probably” received by the devices. Thus, the term “data” cannot be
confined to a specific embodiment when the claims do not recite a specific
embodiment. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d at 1184.
Hulyalkar discloses a plurality of terminals in a wireless network that
transmit data to each other (FF 1), wherein any of the terminal may be a
central controller (FF 2), and wherein the transmissions are broadcast such
that the data is receivable by any of the terminals within some viable range
of the transmitter (FF 3). We find that the data received by the terminals in
Hulyalkar is also received by the terminal that is the central controller.
Hulyalkar also discloses using an acknowledgment signal to
acknowledge that data is received by the terminals (FF 4), wherein the
centralized controller sends the acknowledgment signal to indicate that the
data is received by the terminals (FF 5). We agree with the Examiner that
Hulyalkar, when combined with Agarwal, teaches or at the least suggests
“determining that said data was probably received by said devices by
waiting for a data acknowledgment signal from the central coordinator as an
Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
9
indicator of successful reception of the data by said central coordinator and
also as an indication that the data was probably received by said devices to
which the data was transmitted” (claim 1).
Appellants further argue that “data concerning the quality assessment
of paths is sent to a central coordinator” where the central coordinator “uses
the data it receives to determine which paths should be used for
transmissions through the network” (App. Br. 8). The Appellants appear to
be arguing that Hulyalkar does not disclose a central coordinator that only
receives data that was probably received by the other devices because the
central coordinator of Hulyalkar also receives data concerning the quality
assessment of paths and determines which paths should be used for
transmission. However, our analysis will not read limitations into the
claims, wherein we will not read “only receives data that was probably
received by other devices” or “cannot also receive data concerning the
quality assessment of paths” into the claimed limitation of “waiting for a
data acknowledgement signal from the central coordinator.”
As discussed, Hulyalkar discloses receiving a data acknowledgment
signal from the central coordinator (FF 5), wherein the acknowledgment
signal indicates reception of data from the devices (FF 4) and wherein the
devices include the central coordinator (FF 1-3).
As the Examiner finds, “the claims fail to explicitly recite or suggest
that all of the elements contained in ‘data’ transmitted to the devices must
also be contained in the ‘data’ sent to the central coordinator” (Ans. 12).
Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
10
Thus, the Examiner finds that “the function of the central[sic] coordinator is
not limited to receiving data concerning the quality assessment of paths, as
suggested by Applicant, but is also inclusive of receiving the same data
transmitted from the sending device to another device” (Ans. 12).
Though Appellants also contend that “it is not reasonable to interpret
applicant’s claim language which defines a single step, by taking into
consideration actions that occur in two entirely separate steps in the system”
(App. Br. 9) and that “there is not a large number of acknowledgment
signals transmitted on the network” (App. Br. 10), such contentions are not
commensurate with the claimed invention. That is, the claims do not recite
any such “single step” or “not a large number of acknowledgment signals.”
In the Reply Brief, Appellants further contend that “Hulyalkar teach
that it is the device that received the data that sends the acknowledgment.”
Appellants appear to be arguing that Hulyakar fails to disclose a data
acknowledgment signal only from the central coordinator, which is not
commensurate with the claimed invention since the claims do not recite any
such “only” language. As set forth in the Examiner’s findings and as
discussed above, Hulyalkar also discloses that the central coordinator sends
the acknowledgment (FF 4-5).
Similarly, in Appellants contention in the Reply Brief that different
data is sent to the devices and to the central coordinator, Appellants appear
to be arguing that Hulyakar fails to disclose only the same data from the
devices is sent to the central coordinator, which is not commensurate with
Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
11
the claimed invention since the claims do not recite any such “only”
language. As set forth in the Examiner’s findings and as discussed above,
Hulyalkar also discloses that “said data” sent to the devices is also sent to
the central coordinator as well as other data concerning the quality
assessment of paths (FF 1-3).
Accordingly, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
over the teachings of Agarwal in view of Hulyalkar. Therefore, we group
claims 2-10 with representative claim 1.

Claims 11-14
As to claims 11-14, Appellants add the argument that Wang “adds
nothing with respect to sending a message to devices and to a central
station” (App. Br. 12).
However, as discussed above regarding claim 1, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Agarwal and Hulyalkar teaches or at the
least suggests such features. We find no deficiencies regarding the
combination of Agarwal and Hulyalkar, as discussed above regarding claim
1. Therefore, we conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 11-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings
of Agarwal, Hulyalkar and Wang.

Appeal 2008-3075
Application 10/404,957
12
VI. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(1) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
claims 1-10 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings of
Agarwal and Hulyalkar.
(2) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
claims 11-14 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over the teachings
of Agarwal, Hulyalkar, and Wang.
(3) Claims 1-14 are not patentable.

VII. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED

pgc

MARGER JOHNSON & MCCOLLOM, P.C. - Sharp
210 SW MORRISON STREET, SUITE 400
PORTLAND OR 97204