Ex Parte Azizi et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 22, 2018

13931918 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/931,918 06/29/2013
45457 7590 06/26/2018
SCHWEGMAN LUNDBERG & WOESSNER/Intel
P.O. Box 2938
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
Shahrnaz Azizi
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
4884.122US1 5553
EXAMINER
ZHANG, ZHENSHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/26/2018 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):
uspto@slwip.com
SLW@blackhillsip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHAHRNAZ AZIZI, ADRIAN P. STEPHENS,
THOMAS J. KENNEY, ELDAD PERAHIA,
and MINYOUNG PARK
Appeal 2018-001150
Application 13/931,918
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 26, 29--34, 36-40, and 43--46, which are all the pending claims. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants identify Intel Corp. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001150
Application 13/931,918
Introduction
Appellants' invention relates to "the field of collision mitigation
between transmissions of wireless transmitters and receivers operating at
different bandwidths." Spec. i-f 1. Appellants' invention is directed to issues
related to the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers (IEEE)
802.1 lah standard that differ from previous IEEE 802.1 ln/ac standards. See
Spec. i-fi-1 4--8.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal:
26. A wireless communication station (STA)
comprising physical layer (PHY) circuitry and processing
elements to:
receive a transmission on a channel of a basic service set
(BSS);
determine, in response to receipt of the transmission,
whether a network allocation vector (NAV) of the STA
indicates idle, which indicates that the channel is idle;
receive an indication of a primary channel and a
bandwidth of the primary channel, and, ifthe NA Vindicates
idle and the ST A determines that the ST A has just exited a
power save mode such that the STA has not been awake a
sufficient time to receive a start of packet (SOP), detect a data
portion of a physical layer protocol data unit (PPDU)
compatible with a standard of an Institute for Electrical and
Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.1 lah family of standards in
the primary channel and in a secondary channel associated with
the primary channel; and
refrain from transmitting on the primary channel or
secondary channel in response to detection of the data portion
in the primary channel or in the secondary channel, wherein the
STA is capable to operate within a 2 MHz basic service set
(BSS), and the primary channel includes the lower 1 MHz of
the 2 MHz BSS operating channel bandwidth.
App. Br. 13 (Claims App'x).
2
Appeal 2018-001150
Application 13/931,918
Rejections & References
Claims 26, 33, 34, and 40 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Bonta (US 2010/0091716 Al; Apr. 15, 2010),
Kneckt (US 2013/0176980 Al; July 11, 2013), Rangarajan (US 8,411,801
Bl; Apr. 2, 2013), Jones IV (US 2013/0107830 Al; May 2, 2013), and Timo
Koskela, 802.1 lah Channel Access Enhancement, document submission
IEEE.l l-12/0877r2 (July 2012) (available at mentor.ieee.org/802.11/dcn/12/
11-12-0 877 -02-00ah- l l ah-channel-access-enhancement. pptx (last accessed
June 12, 2018)) ("Koskela"). Final Act. 4--8.
Claims 29, 32, 36, 39, 43, and 46 stand rejected§ 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bonta, Kneckt, Rangarajan, Jones, Koskela, and Liu (US
2012/0263086 Al; Oct. 8, 2012). Final Act. 8-10.
Claims 30, 31, 37, 38, 44, and 45 stand rejected§ 103(a) as
unpatentable over Bonta, Kneckt, Rangarajan, Jones, Koskela, Liu, and
IEEE draft standard document IEEE 802.l l-l 1/l 137r2 (Nov. 2012)
(available at mentor.ieee.org/802. l l/dcn/11/11-11-1137-12-00ah-
specification-framework-for-tgah.docx (last accessed June 12, 2018)). Final
Act. 10-12.
ANALYSIS 2
In rejecting claim 26, the Examiner finds Bonta teaches the recited
requirement to "refrain from transmitting on the primary channel or
secondary channel in response to detection of the data portion in the primary
channel or in the secondary channel." Final Act. 5 (citing Bonta i-f 26).
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in this finding because Bonta, which
2 Because we reverse the Examiner based on a dispositive issue, we do not
address all of Appellants' arguments.
3
Appeal 2018-001150
Application 13/931,918
relates "to a method and apparatus to quiet transmissions on consecutive
narrow band channels" (Bonta i-f 1 ), is silent regarding the type of primary
and secondary channels recited in claim 26. See App. Br. 9.
The Examiner responds by finding Bonta teaches refraining from
transmitting on primary channels and that this teaching "can be applied to
any channel type, including the primary or secondary channels in an IEEE
802.1 lah system taught by Jones." Ans. 3. The Examiner finds Bonta and
Jones both "deal with the problem of scanning or monitoring the channel
conditions and selecting the appropriate channels to use" and that ordinarily
skilled artisans would have been motivated to combine their teachings "to
increase the system efficiency by taking the channel conditions into
account." Ans. 3.
In response to the Examiner's new findings regarding Bonta and Jones
in the Answer, Appellants argue it would not have been obvious to an artisan
of ordinary skill to modify as necessary Bon ta' s disclosure of quieting
adjacent broadband channels based on the 802.1 lah teachings of Jones.
Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellants contend the Examiner errs because the
transmission conflict rules for IEEE 802 .11 ah devices, including those for
refraining from transmitting, differ from transmission conflict rules
applicable to broadband network devices of Bonta, such as for IEEE
802.llac devices. Id. (citing Spec. i-f 4); see also Spec. i-fi-15-7 (discussing
differences for Clear Channel Assessment (CCA) rules between IEEE
802.1 ln/ac and 802.1 lah). We find Appellants' argument persuasive.
Bonta is concerned with enabling a secondary network (e.g., an IEEE
802.16m network) to operate within a primary wideband network system
(e.g., an IEEE 802.11 network). See Bonta i-fi-11-5. Bonta specifically
4
Appeal 2018-001150
Application 13/931,918
discloses IEEE 802 .11 ac as an example of a primary network. See Bonta
i-fi-12-3. To provide the necessary bandwidth for the secondary network,
Bonta reserves multiple consecutive (adjacent) channels in the primary
network. Bonta i-fi-1 4--5. We agree with Appellants that Bonta is silent
regarding "refraining from transmitting on the primary or secondary
channel," as recited in claim 26. Reply Br. 2.
Jones relates to channel selection for IEEE 802.1 lah networks and
teaches distinguishing between primary and secondary channels in the
selection. See Jones i-fi-13, 6, 17. The Examiner finds, based on the teachings
of Jones, that an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to
modify Bonta to quiet both primary and secondary channels "to increase the
system efficiency by taking the channel conditions into account." Ans. 3.
"[A] patent composed of several elements is not proved obvious merely by
demonstrating that each of its elements was, independently, known in the
prior art." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007); see also
Perfect Web Techs., Inc. v. InfoUSA, Inc., 587 F.3d 1324, 1328-30 (Fed.
Cir. 2009) (explaining an obviousness rejection must sufficiently explain the
reasoning by which those findings support the conclusion of obviousness).
While reasoning to combine teachings may be found in many ways, here, in
view of the Specification's explanation for why specific differences between
IEEE 802.1 lac and 802.1 lah compel the purportedly inventive solution that
includes the disputed claim limitation, we are persuaded by Appellants there
is insufficient evidence to support the Examiner's finding that it would have
been obvious to modify Bonta's teaching of quieting contiguous channels
with the 802.1 lah network disclosed by Jones simply to increase system
efficiency. See Reply Br. 2.
5
Appeal 2018-001150
Application 13/931,918
Accordingly, we do not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 26. We also, accordingly, do not sustain the rejection of independent
claims 33 and 40, which include similar limitations and stand rejected on the
same basis. We also, therefore, do not sustain the rejections of dependent
claims 29--32, 34, 36-39, and 43--46.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we reverse the pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejections of claims 26, 29--34, 36--40, and 43--46.
REVERSED
6