Ex Parte Tran

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 30, 2012

11741894 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte BAO Q. TRAN
____________________

Appeal 2010-001617
Application 11/741,894
Technology Center 3600
____________________

Before EDWARD A. BROWN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
BENJAMIN D. M. WOOD, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-001617
Application 11/741,894

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Schwengler (US
7,050,819 B2, issued May 23, 2006) and Longaker (US 6,226,601 B1,
issued May 1, 2001). We have jurisdiction over this appeal under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
appealed subject matter.
1. A wireless network, comprising:
a plurality of seismic sensors; and
a wireless station adapted to communicate
seismic information with the plurality of sensors,
each wireless station being part of a mesh network
providing node to node communication, and
a long range transceiver coupled to at least
one wireless station to communicate with a seismic
recording truck.
ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1-20 as a group. (App. Br. 3-7). We select
claim 1 as representative of the group. Claims 2-20 stand or fall with claim
1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)(2011).
The Examiner found Schwengler discloses a wireless network
comprising a plurality of sensors (mobile units 110); a wireless station (mesh
network 100 and network supervisor 102) adapted to communicate with the
sensors, each wireless station being part of a mesh network that provides
node to node communication; and a long range transceiver (part of a fixed
Appeal 2010-001617
Application 11/741,894

3
distribution point 104) coupled to at least one wireless station to
communicate with a recording truck (a mobile unit 110 used by a truck).
(Ans. 3-4; see Schwengler col. 2, ll. 14-28, Fig. 1). The Examiner found
Schwengler discloses relaying data from one mobile unit 110 to another
located in a different area, but does not expressly disclose that the mobile
units 110 send and receive seismic sensor data. (Ans. 4).
The Examiner found Longaker teaches remote seismic sensors that
use wireless links to relay data to a collection station, establishing that
"seismic sensors and seismic recording devices can be connected by radio
links." (Ans. 4). The Examiner found Longaker also teaches a desire to
replace cable-based links with radio-based links in seismic surveying. (Ans.
4, citing Longaker col. 1, ll. 64-67, which states "What is needed is a radio-
based system for eliminating the problems associated with cable-based
systems and which is not constrained as to the number of channels that can
be supported."). The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious
to modify Schwengler's mobile communication elements (110) in the
wireless mesh network to communicate seismic data to take advantage of the
network's node-to-node capability. (Ans. 4-5).
We have considered Appellant's contentions stated in the Briefs, but
do not find them persuasive for the reasons discussed infra. Appellant
contends that mobile phones and PDAs are not sensors. (Reply Br. 1). The
Examiner found Schwengler discloses that each mobile unit 110 can be a
mobile phone or a personal digital assistant (PDA). (Ans. 3; see Schwengler
col. 3, ll. 1-3). Appellant does not direct us to an explicit definition of the
claim term "sensor" in the Specification, or to any disclosure therein that
Appeal 2010-001617
Application 11/741,894

4
limits this term so as to preclude the Examiner's construction. See In re
Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1480 (Fed. Cir. 1994); In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320,
1325 (Fed. Cir. 2004). An ordinary meaning of "sensor" is "a device that
responds to a physical stimulus (as heat, light, sound, pressure, magnetism,
or a particular motion) and transmits a resulting impulse (as for
measurement or operating a control)." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate
Dictionary 1133 (11th ed. 2003). This definition is consistent with
Appellant's usage of "sensor." (Spec. 4). We find no error in the Examiner's
finding that a mobile phone, for example, functions as a "sensor," in that it
responds to a physical stimulus (sound) and transmits a resulting impulse.
Appellant states that "to Applicant's knowledge, the oil industry has
never used mobile phones to pick up seismic sounds." (Reply Br. 1).
However, the Examiner's combination modifies mobile units 110 in
Schwengler's mesh communication system to collect and send seismic data
(Ans. 8), and does not result in using mobile phones to pick up seismic
sounds. Appellant appears to be analyzing the applied prior art references
separately. Non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references
individually where, as here, the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981). Accordingly, because Appellant's contention does not address the
Examiner's actual combination, it is not persuasive.
Regarding the claimed "wireless station," Appellant correctly notes
that Schwengler describes the overall network as the "mesh network 100."
(Reply Br. 1). However, Appellant does not apprise of any error in the
Examiner's finding that Schwengler's network supervisor 102 in the mesh
Appeal 2010-001617
Application 11/741,894

5
network 100 corresponds to the claimed "wireless station." (Id.). In this
regard, claim 1 recites "a wireless station adapted to communicate seismic
information with the plurality of sensors, each wireless station being part of
a mesh network providing node to node communication." In Schwengler,
the network supervisor 102 is part of the mesh network 100, and the mesh
network 100 provides "node to node communication." (See Schwengler col.
3, ll. 14-24, col. 4, ll. 4-7, Fig. 1). In the modified mesh network, the
network supervisor 102 would be able to communicate seismic information
with seismic sensors via distribution points 104. Accordingly, Appellant's
contention is not persuasive.
Appellant further contends that Schwengler's "distribution [point] 104
is connected to the network supervisor 102 to communicate with the
internet. There is no long range transceiver coupled to a wireless station to
communicate with a recording truck in Schwengler." (Reply Br. 1).
Schwengler discloses that distribution points 104 can communicate
wirelessly with each other and with the network supervisor 102 through
wireless connections 105, as well as with the mobile units 110. (Schwengler
col. 2, ll. 60-63, Fig. 1). As distribution points 104 receive and transmit
wireless signals, Appellant has not adequately explained why the Examiner's
finding that a fixed distribution point 104 in the modified system would have
a "long range transceiver" is in error. Further, we construe the claim
recitation, "to communicate with a seismic recording truck," as a statement
of the intended use of the long range transceiver. "It is well settled that the
recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to
that old product patentable." See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed.
Appeal 2010-001617
Application 11/741,894

6
Cir. 1997). Appellant has not provided any persuasive argument or evidence
showing that a transceiver as part of a fixed distribution point 104 in the
modified Schwengler mesh network would be incapable of being used to
communicate with a mobile unit provided on a seismic recording truck.1
Accordingly, this contention is also not persuasive.
Appellant further contends that Longaker's wireless seismic survey
system is completely dissimilar to the mesh network of the present
invention, and one skilled in the art would not have combined Schwengler
with Longaker because this would result in "a chaotic cellular system where
one cell phone interferes with another." (App. Br. 3; Reply Br. 2).
However, the Examiner explained that the combination does not combine
the networks of Schwengler and Longaker, but rather modifies Schwengler's
mesh communication system, which communicates data from mobile
communication devices (110), to collect and relay seismic data. (Ans. 6).
Accordingly, this contention is not persuasive.
Appellant contends that the Examiner's conclusion that "the
substitution of one established communication link for another is obvious,"
is an unsupported opinion. (App. Br. 3). However, as discussed supra,
Schwengler teaches different types of mobile units that communicate data
wirelessly can be used in the mesh network, and Longaker teaches that it
was desired in the seismic sensing art to substitute cable-based with radio-
based communication systems. (See also Ans. 7). Appellant has provided
no persuasive argument or evidence that using seismic sensors to collect and

1 We note Schwengler discloses an example in which the mobile unit 110 "is
operating on external power, such as a car battery. . . ." (Schwengler col. 4,
ll. 24-25) (emphasis added).
Appeal 2010-001617
Application 11/741,894

7
communicate seismic data in Schwengler's wireless mesh network would
have been beyond the ordinary level of skill in the art. As such, this
contention is not persuasive.
Appellant also contends that Longaker does not have station to station
or node to node forwarding of communication, and its cells do not
communicate directly with each other to forward messages. (App. Br. 5;
Reply Br. 2). In response, the Examiner again explained that Schwengler
already teaches node to node communication between mobile units 110.
(Ans. 7-8, citing Schwengler, col. 3, second para.). Accordingly, this
contention is not persuasive.
Appellant contends that the Examiner's combination would not work
and would be a chaotic cellular system "where one cell phone interferes with
another cell phone." (App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 2). This contention is not
persuasive for reasons discussed supra. (See also Ans. 8).
Appellant also contends there is no reasonable expectation of success
for the combination because "the needs of mesh networked seismic sensors
differ from cellular based seismic sensors," and combining them would
result in an inoperable device. (App. Br. 6; Reply Br. 3). In response, the
Examiner again explained that the combination of Schwengler and Longaker
does not require combining a cellular system into a mesh network, but
modifies Schwengler's mesh network to include seismic sensors. (Ans. 9).
Appellant has not provided any persuasive argument or evidence that the
Examiner's modification of Schwengler would have been beyond the
ordinary level of skill in the art. The Examiner also determined that a
reasonable expectation of success is established by Schwengler's teaching
Appeal 2010-001617
Application 11/741,894

8
that mesh networks can provide node to node communication of data
between mobile users of a suitable communication device, and by
Longaker's teachings that seismic sensors were known to be suitable for
mobile communication, and it was desired in the seismic communication art
to use radio based systems to collect data. (Ans. 9). Appellant has not
apprised us of any error in these findings.
Appellant further contends that the Examiner did not identify any
evidence in Schwengler or Longaker to provide a suggestion or motivation
to modify the reference teachings to produce the claimed invention. (App.
Br. 7; Reply Br. 4). However, as discussed supra, the Examiner identified
specific teachings in Schwengler and Longaker that support the stated
rationale for the combination. Moreover, in KSR the Supreme Court rejected
the rigid requirement of an express teaching, suggestion, or motivation to
combine known elements in order to establish obviousness. KSR Int'l Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418-19 (2007). The Examiner has, as required,
articulated an adequate reason with a rational basis for combining the
teachings of Schwengler and Longaker to support the conclusion of
obviousness. Id. at 417-418. Accordingly, this contention is not persuasive.
Lastly, Appellant contends that Schwengler and Longaker do not
disclose "the specifics as recited in the dependent claims." (App. Br. 7;
Reply Br. 3). However, the Examiner made specific findings for the
dependent claims (Ans. 5-6), but Appellant does not address any specific
dependent claim and provides no specific arguments or evidence that
addresses these findings. Accordingly, Appellant has not apprised us of any
error in the Examiner's findings and conclusions for the dependent claims.
Appeal 2010-001617
Application 11/741,894

9
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claims 1-20 as being
unpatentable over Schwengler and Longaker.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-20 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED

mls