Ex Parte TranDownload PDFBoard of Patent Appeals and InterferencesJul 30, 201211741894 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 30, 2012) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation