Ex Parte Campbell et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 24, 2019

13951839 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 24, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/951,839 07/26/2013
23494 7590 01/28/2019
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED
PO BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Bradford James Campbell
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.
TI-72696 4408
EXAMINER
YOUNG, STEVER
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/28/2019 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@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte BRADFORD JAMES CAMPBELL,
ARITON E. XHAF A, and ANUJ BATRA
Appeal 2018-002463
Application 13/951,839
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the
Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-20, the only claims pending in the
application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments
Incorporated. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-002463
Application 13/951,839
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants 'Invention
Appellants' invention generally relates to "optimizing power
consumption of energy harvesting nodes in a wireless sensor network."
Spec. ,r 3. Claim 1, which is illustrative, reads as follows:
1. A method comprising:
determining, by a network coordinator of a wireless
network, whether a wireless device that is wirelessly
communicating with the network coordinator is powered via
energy harvesting; and
scheduling, by the network coordinator, based on a
determination that the wireless device is powered by energy
harvesting, the wireless device to communicate via the wireless
network using a priority timeslot of a superframe of the wireless
network, wherein the priority timeslot is a timeslot occurring in
an initial portion of the superframe.
App. Br. (Claims Appendix).
Rejection
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Oh et al. (US 2012/0163263 Al;
published June 28, 2012) ("Oh") and Ding (US 8,432,887 Bl; issued
Apr. 30, 2013). Final Act. 2-14.
Dispositive Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Oh and Ding
teaches or suggests "determining, by a network coordinator of a wireless
network, whether a wireless device that is wirelessly communicating with
2
Appeal 2018-002463
Application 13/951,839
the network coordinator is powered via energy harvesting," as recited in
claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding the combination of
Oh and Ding teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. App. Br. 8-12;
Reply Br. 1-13. In particular, Appellants argue Oh, upon which the
Examiner relies (see Final Act. 3 (citing Oh ,r,r 60-61; Fig. 3)), fails to
provide "any teaching or suggestion of developing a protocol that
determined whether or not a wireless device 'is powered via energy
harvesting' (versus 'is not powered via energy harvesting['])." App. Br. 10
( citing Oh ,r 7). Appellants further argue Oh "teaches that the terminal
transmits an 'energy harvesting speed to the base station"' and that "[t]he
beacon transmission period may be determined based on the energy
harvesting speed and the sensing period" but "there is no determination as
to whether the terminal implements 'energy harvesting,"' as required by
claim 1. App. Br. 10-11 (citing Oh ,r,r 12-15) (underlining omitted).
Additionally, Appellants argue:
Paragraphs [0060] & [0061] teach that a terminal using "energy
harvesting" can only be scheduled using Beacon B in response
to the energy harvesting speed being reported to the base station
by the terminal. Yet paragraphs [ 0060] & [ 0061] fail to teach or
suggest ... "determining, by a network coordinator of a wireless
network, whether a wireless device that is wirelessly
communicating with the network coordinator is powered via
energy harvesting", as required by Claim 1.
App. Br. 12.
We find Appellants' arguments persuasive. The Examiner finds "the
claim language is broad and vague in terms of what this 'determination' is"
and "'[d]etermining' whether a device is powered via energy harvesting
3
Appeal 2018-002463
Application 13/951,839
could be broadly construed as determining whether a device is being
'currently' powered via energy harvesting (i.e.[, the] device is being
recharged using energy harvesting)." Ans. 16-17. The Examiner further
finds:
Oh in [0054] teaches that energy harvesting is performed during
a sleep mode/low power mode period (also [0028] which shows
that a charging preamble signal is sent when device is in low
power mode). Therefore it can be construed that when the device
is in the sleep mode period, it is determined that the wireless
device is "powered via energy harvesting" and when the wireless
device is in the normal mode period, it is determined that the
wireless device is not "powered via energy harvesting" [0067]
(as charging is only performed in low power mode).
Ans. 17. However, the Examiner's findings are insufficient to show that Oh
teaches or suggests that the base station (e.g., network coordinator) actually
makes a determination as to whether the terminal is in a sleep/low power
mode or a normal mode. Instead, we agree with Appellants (Reply Br. 6-7)
that Oh merely teaches that "the base station determines a period of
receiving a beacon B signal in response to a request of the terminal and
reports the determined period to the terminal" ( Oh ,r 61 ); that "[ w ]hen packet
transmission or packet reception is not required, the terminal enters a sleep
mode period" (Oh ,r 56); and that the terminal "may harvest energy from
surroundings in the sleep mode period" (id.).
Additionally, the Examiner finds the disputed limitation reads on "the
step in Oh where the wireless device informs the network coordinator (i.e.
base station) of energy harvesting speed information" because "the network
coordinator functionally changes/performs transmissions and actions
differently after receiving the energy harvesting information (i.e. subsequent
'scheduling' steps)." Ans. 17 (citing Oh ,r,r 60-61). The Examiner finds the
4
Appeal 2018-002463
Application 13/951,839
transmission of the energy harvesting information "can be construed as an
implied notification of the fact that the wireless device is being 'powered via
energy harvesting."' Ans. 17-18. The Examiner also finds that "[i]n order
for the network coordinator to perform energy harvesting response type of
functionality, at some point, the network coordinator would need to
'determine' that the device it is talking to is capable of energy harvesting."
Ans. 19. We disagree.
While Oh's base station could determine that the terminal is powered
via energy harvesting based on receiving the energy harvesting speed
information, we agree with Appellants (see Reply Br. 7-8) that the
Examiner's findings that the base station performs certain actions in
response to receiving energy harvesting speed information and that the
transmission of the energy harvesting speed information is an implied
notification, without more, are insufficient to show that at the determination
is actually made or that it would be obvious to do so.
For the foregoing reasons, we find the Examiner has failed to show
that the combination of Oh and Ding teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim
1; independent claims 8 and 16, which recite corresponding limitations and
were rejected on the same basis as claim 1 (see Final Act. 7, 11 ); and claims
2-7, 9-15, and 17-20, which depend from claims 1, 8, and 16.
We do not reach Appellants' further allegations of error because we
find the issue discussed above to be dispositive as to the rejection of all the
pending claims.
5
Appeal 2018-002463
Application 13/951,839
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
REVERSED
6