Ex Parte Hiertz et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 7, 201310561457 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 7, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte GUIDO HIERTZ, RAJESH SHANTARAM BAGUL, OLAF WISCHHUSEN, JORG HABETHA, and KLAUS MAY ____________________ Appeal 2011-000016 Application 10/561,457 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and PATRICK M. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judges. BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-000016 Application 10/561,457 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of claims 1–25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Illustrative Claim The disclosure relates to decentralized medium access control in a communications network (Spec., p. 1, ll. 6–7). Claim 1 is illustrative and is reproduced below with the disputed limitations emphasized: 1. A method of decentralized medium access control in a communications network consisting of a plurality of stations, wherein a sending station transmits a reservation request for a future transmission to an intended receiving station, the intended receiving station being in a reception range of the sending station, the method comprising: transmitting the reservation request signaling reservation information including a starting point and duration of the future transmission, thereby defining a time period of the future transmission, and, in case of a multi-channel system, further including a frequency or code of the channel of the future transmission, thereby establishing a reservation, and overhearing the reservation request by stations active in the reception range, such that stations other than the intended receiving station store the reservation information locally and defer from medium access during the time period and on the channel of the future transmission. References The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Appeal 2011-000016 Application 10/561,457 3 Giles Han He Shaffer Whitehill Matsunaga White US 5,231,634 US 5,633,911 US 5,734,898 US 5,960,001 US 6,404,756 B1 US 6,704,932 B1 US 7,433,691 B1 Jul. 27, 1993 May 27, 1997 Mar. 31, 1998 Sep. 28, 1999 Jun. 11, 2002 Mar. 9, 2004 Oct. 7, 2008 Rejections1 The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as unpatentable over Whitehill, Giles, and He (Ans. 3).2 ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in their Appeal Brief and Reply Brief, and have reviewed the Examiner’s response to Appellants’ arguments. 1 A rejection of claims 1–16 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written-description requirement, has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Ans. 2), and is therefore not before us. 2 Separate patentability is not argued for the rejection of claims 2–25 based on Whitehill and Giles, in combination with He and other references. Although several of these claims are presented under separate headings, Appellants merely reference the arguments presented for claim 1 without presenting any additional arguments to establish separate patentability. In some instances, Appellants assert that certain dependent claims include additional distinguishing features, but provide no further arguments for us to consider. Because such assertions “merely point[] out what a claim recites” they are not “considered [arguments] for separate patentability.” 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(1)(vii). See In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (sustaining requirement that Appellants articulate more substantive arguments if they wish for individual claims to be treated separately). Except for our ultimate decision, these other claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2011-000016 Application 10/561,457 4 Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) (App. Br. 10–15; Rep. Br. 4–8). These contentions present us with the following issues: (1) Did the Examiner err in finding Whitehill discloses “overhearing the reservation request by stations active in the reception range, such that stations other than the intended receiving station store the reservation information locally and defer from medium access during the time period and on the channel of the future transmission,” as recited in claim 1? (2) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of claim 1’s recitation of “thereby establishing a reservation” with its other limitations obvious over Whitehill, Giles, and He? First Issue Appellants contend that Whitehill fails to disclose “overhearing the reservation request by stations active in the reception range, such that stations other than the intended receiving station store the reservation information locally and defer from medium access during the time period and on the channel of the future transmission” (emphasis added) because “Whitehill discloses that the nodes store the channel reservations that have been accomplished” (App. Br. 11, emphasis added). Whitehill relates generally to “methods and apparatus for coordinating channel access to shared communication resources, and more particularly, to techniques for allowing a group of network nodes to coordinate channel access to plural data channels” (Whitehill, col. 1, ll.17–21). As Appellants note (App. Br. 12), channel reservation is accomplished in Whitehill through an exchange of request-to-send (“RTS”) and clear-to-send (“CTS”) Appeal 2011-000016 Application 10/561,457 5 messages: A first node wishing to transmit to a second node sends an RTS message to the second node, with a reservation being established upon receipt of a CTS message from the second node (see, e.g., Whitehill, col. 9, ll.51–62). Appellants contend that “one ordinarily skilled in the art would not consider that the nodes store the channel reservation based on the request, but only after the RTS/CTS exchange” (App. Br. 11, emphasis added). This argument is not persuasive because it is incommensurate with the scope of the claim. The claim recites “overhearing the reservation request . . . such that [other] stations . . . store the reservation information locally.” As the Examiner correctly finds, Whitehill discloses continuous monitoring of the reservation channel (Ans. 4, citing Whitehill, col. 5, ll. 21–28), and we therefore conclude that Whitehill discloses overhearing the reservation request. While Whitehill discloses storing channel reservations “that have been accomplished” (Whitehill, col. 5, ll. 27), i.e., after the RTS/CTS exchange, the claim does not require that reservation information be stored “based on the request” as Appellants argue. We therefore are unpersuaded that the Examiner has erred. Second Issue Appellants contend that He “is non-analogous art and therefore an invalid reference under 35 U.S.C. 103(a)” (App. Br. 13). “Two criteria have evolved for determining whether prior art is analogous: (1) whether the art is from the same field of endeavor, regardless of the problem addressed, and (2) if the reference is not within the field of the inventor’s endeavor, whether the reference still is reasonably pertinent to Appeal 2011-000016 Application 10/561,457 6 the particular problem with which the inventor is involved.” In re Clay, 966 F.2d 656,658 (Fed. Cir. 1992). (citing In re Deminski, 796 F.2d 436, 442 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032, 1036 (CCPA 1979)). The teaching value of He resides in the disclosure of a specific process related to transmitting a request. Specifically, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that claim 1 “concerns transmitting a request (e.g. reservation request) from one terminal to another” and that He “concerns transmitting a request (e.g. update request) from one terminal to another” (Ans. 19). We further agree with the Examiner that “an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been compelled to look at how [] predecessors in related arts have solved the same problems faced by them, regardless of the actual transmission medium or content of data . . . ” (Ans. 19). He is therefore analogous art. He discloses a communication protocol in which an update request is sent to a destination station by a source station, which proceeds to the next process without needing a response from the destination station (see Ans. 4– 5, citing He, col. 9, ll. 42–52; 1:36–44). We therefore find that the combination of claim 1’s recitation of “thereby establishing a reservation” with its other limitations is obvious over Whitehill, Giles, and He. For these reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Whitehill, Giles, and He. CONCLUSION On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1–25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2011-000016 Application 10/561,457 7 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–25 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation