Ex Parte Dawson et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJul 22, 201613489673 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2016) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation