Ex Parte Dawson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2016

13489673 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/489,673 06/06/2012 Christopher J. DAWSON
46583 7590 07/26/2016
Roberts Mlotkowski Safran Cole & Calderon, P.C.
Intellectual Property Department
P.O. Box 10064
MCLEAN, VA 22102-8064
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.
END920060242US2 1031
EXAMINER
DASS, BARISH T
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3695
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/26/2016 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):
docketing@rmsc2.com
lgallaugher@rmsc2.com
dbeltran@rmsc2.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTPHER J. DAWSON, PETER G. FINN,
RICK A. HAMILTON, II, and JENNY S. LI
Appeal2014-000300
Application 13/489 ,673 1
Technology Center 3600
Before BRUCE T. WIEDER, AMEE A. SHAH, and
MATTHEWS. MEYERS, Administrative Patent Judges.
WIEDER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the
Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20.2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is International Business
Machines Corporation. (Appeal Br. 2.)
2 In view of the Examiner's statement that "[ c ]laims 1-20 are pending"
(Final Action 2) and the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 (id. at 3-10),
we consider the statement that "[c]laims 1-18 is/are pending in the
application" (id. at 1 ), to be erroneous.
Appeal2014-000300
Application 13/489,673
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellants' claimed "invention generally relates to systems and
methods for data transfer and, more particularly, to systems and methods for
data transfer in bandwidth sharing ad hoc networks." (Spec. i-f 2.)
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are the independent claims on appeal. Claim 1 is
illustrative and is reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. A method, comprising:
providing a computer infrastructure compnsmg a
processor that operates to:
maintain, by the computer infrastructure, at least
one of a borrower account associated with a bandwidth
borrower and a lender account associated with a
bandwidth lender of a bandwidth sharing ad hoc network;
and
at least one of debit the borrower account and credit
the lender account, by the computer infrastructure, based
on borrowing and lending of bandwidth, respectively,
wherein the bandwidth sharing ad hoc network is
configured such that the bandwidth borrower and the bandwidth
lender are in communication with a central location via wireless
telephony communication protocol, the bandwidth lender is in
communication with the bandwidth borrower via local wireless
communication protocol, and the bandwidth lender selectively
lends bandwidth to the bandwidth borrower for downloading
data from or uploading data to the central location.
REJECTIONS3
Claims 1, 8, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishiyama (US 2005/0036475 Al, pub. Feb. 17, 2005)
and Turk (US 6,415,271 Bl, iss. July 2, 2002).
3 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § l 12(b) is withdrawn. (Answer 3.)
2
Appeal2014-000300
Application 13/489,673
Claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Nishiyama, Turk, and Norris (US 7,949,593 B2, iss.
May 24, 2011).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Nishiyama, Turk, and O'Neill (US 2006/0036518 Al, pub. Feb. 16, 2006).
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Nishiyama discloses "that the bandwidth
borrower (Abstract - other communication station) and the bandwidth lender
(communication station) are in communication with a central location (i-f03
(acting as control station), i-fl 1-12 access point)." (Answer 5, emphasis
omitted.)
Appellants argue:
Contrary to the Examiner's assertion, Nishiyama's paragraph
0003 does not teach "the bandwidth borrower and the bandwidth
lender are in communication \'l1ith a central location." In fact, it
teaches the opposite. The sentence in Nishiyama's paragraph
0003 that mentions a "control station" actually describes that the
invention is performed without using a control station.
(Reply 2, emphasis omitted.)
Nishiyama discloses that "the present invention relates to a wireless
communication system, a wireless communication apparatus, a wireless
communication method and a computer program in which an ad-hoc
communication wireless network is established without particularly
providing an apparatus acting as a control station." (Nishiyama i13.)
Paragraphs 11 and 12 of Nishiyama, cited by the Examiner
(Answer 5; see also Final Action 4), are included under the "Background of
3
Appeal2014-000300
Application 13/489,673
the Invention" section of Nishiyama and refer to prior art systems. (See
Nishiyama 1 ). Paragraph 11 recites:
In order to construct a local area network using a wireless
communication technology, it is typical to provide a single
apparatus acting as a control station which is known as "an
access point" or "a coordinator" in the area and the network is
formed under supervising control of the control station.
(Id. i-f 11.) Nishiyama further recites:
The present invention provides a wireless communication
system, a wireless communication apparatus and a wireless
communication method, and a computer program, which are
excellent and allow data transmission to be efficiently performed
under an ad-hoc communication environment, in which
communication stations do not have relations such as a control
station ....
(Id. i-f 40.)
In other words, Nishiyama's discussion of a control station is in the
context of the prior art and Nishiyama's discussion of a bandwidth borrower
and a bandwidth lender are in the context of the disclosed invention "in
which communication stations do not have relations such as a control
station." (See id.; see also id. i-fi-133, 168-71.)
Appellants have persuasively argued that the cited portions of
Nishiyama do not disclose a bandwidth borrower and a bandwidth lender in
4
Appeal2014-000300
Application 13/489,673
communication with a central location. Therefore, we reverse the rejection
of claim 1.
Independent claims 8 and 15 have similar language. Thus, for the
same reasons, we are persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
independent claims 8 and 15 and dependent claims 2-7, 9-14, and 16-20.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-20 under§ 103(a) are reversed.
REVERSED
5