Ex Parte Wik et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 23, 2018

13946482 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/946,482 07/19/2013
6147 7590 04/25/2018
GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY
GPO/GLOBAL RESEARCH
901 Main Avenue
3rd Floor
Norwalk, CT 06851
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Steven William Wik
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.
268122-1 us 3643
EXAMINER
REDDIV ALAM, SRINIV ASAR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/25/2018 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):
haeckl@ge.com
gpo.mail@ge.com
Lori.e.rooney@ge.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte STEVEN WILLIAM WIK, DAVID MICHAEL DAVENPORT,
and SM SHAJEDUL HASAN
Appeal2017-010688
Application 13/946,482 1
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
CUTITTA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction over this appeal under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellant is the Applicant, General Electric Company, which, according to
the Appeal Brief, is the real party in interest. See Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal2017-010688
Application 13/946,482
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to Appellant, the claimed invention relates to providing
"for the use of wireless charging circuits (e.g., inductive charging circuits) to
provide low data rate communication to assist in the association and
disassociation of one or more wireless nodes to high data rate wireless
network." Spec. i-f 13. 2
Exemplary Claim
Claims 1, 9, and 14 are independent. Claim 1 is exemplary of the
claimed subject matter and is reproduced below with disputed limitation
emphasized:
1. A system comprising:
a first network member comprising:
a first channel configured as a charging channel,
the first channel configured to at least one of wirelessly
receive or transmit power, the first channel also
configured to transmit network pairing information for at
least one of pairing or un-pairing the first network
member and a second network member, the network
pairing information transmitted over the first channel at a
first frequency; and
a second channel configured as an operational
channel, the second channel configured to communicate
operational information between the first and second
network members when the first and second network
members are paired, the operational information
2 Throughout this Decision, we refer to: (1) Appellant's Specification filed
July 19, 2013 ("Spec."); (2) the Final Office Action ("Final Act."), mailed
September 8, 2016; (3) the Appeal Brief filed February 6, 2017 ("Appeal
Br."); (4) the Examiner's Answer ("Ans."), mailed June 2, 2017; and (5) the
Reply Brief filed July 31, 201 7 ("Reply Br.").
2
Appeal2017-010688
Application 13/946,482
transmitted over the second channel at a second
frequency that is different than the first frequency,
wherein operational information comprises information
corresponding to data sensed by at least some of the second
network members, and control information sent to the at least
some of the second network members for acquiring the data.
Appeal Br. 19.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Rao
Alsina et al.
("Alsina")
Strommen
Bird et al. ("Bird")
US 2008/0129465 Al
US 2010/0278345 Al
US 2013/0326104 Al
US 2014/0302792 Al
REJECTIONS
June 5, 2008
Nov. 4, 2010
Dec. 5, 2013
Oct. 9, 2014
Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 8-10, 13-15, 18, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Alsina and Strommen. Final
Act. 3-15.
Claims 3, 11, 16, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Alsina, Strommen, and Bird. Final Act. 16-19.
Claims 7, 12, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Alsina, Strommen, and Rao. Final Act. 19-23.
Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and
the issues raised by Appellant. Arguments not made are waived. See 37
C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv), 41.39(a)(l).
3
Appeal2017-010688
Application 13/946,482
ISSUE
Whether the Examiner errs in finding the combination of Alsina and
Strommen teaches or suggests "wherein operational information comprises
information corresponding to data sensed by at least some of the second
network members, and control information sent to the at least some of the
second network members for acquiring the data," as recited in independent
claim 1, and as commensurately recited in independent claims 9 and 14.
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that Strommen teaches or suggests the disputed
limitation. See Final Act. 5-6 (citing Strommen i-fi-151, 58); Ans. 23-26.
Appellant disputes the Examiner's factual findings. Appellant first
argues that "Alsina does not teach or suggest anything akin to the element:
wherein operational information comprises information corresponding to
data sensed by at least some of the second network members, and control
information sent to the at least some of the second network members for
acquiring the data." Appeal Br. 9.
We are unpersuaded. Appellant's argument does not address the
actual reasoning of the Examiner's rejection because the Examiner relies on
Strommen, rather than Alsina, to teach the disputed limitation. See Ans. 24--
25 (citing Strommen i-fi-1 51, 58, Fig. 8).
Appellant next argues:
Appellant refers to Strommen' s text in Abstract and paragraphs
4 and 50 and the rest of the disclosure and respectfully states
that Strommen merely describes an apparatus comprising a user
interface docking device that includes a first dock connector, a
second dock connector, a battery, and a built-in keyboard.
Strommen's first dock connector is operable to create a pairing
4
Appeal2017-010688
Application 13/946,482
between the user interface docking device and a wireless
computing device and the second dock connector is operable to
create a pairing between the user interface docking device and a
mobile computer. Appellant respectfully stresses that
Strommen does not teach or suggest any operational
information ... wherein operational information comprises
information corresponding to data sensed by at least some of
the second network members, and control information sent to
the at least some of the second network members for acquiring
the data.
Appeal Br. 13.
We are unpersuaded because the Examiner finds, and we agree, that
paragraphs 51, 5 8, and Figure 8 of Strommen teach the disputed limitation,
rather than the portions of Strommen discussed by Appellant above. See
Ans. 24--25. Appellant's argument, therefore, does not address or otherwise
rebut the Examiner's actual findings. Moreover, in reply, Appellant's
primary argument distinguishing Strommen is that "Strommen' s wireless
communication in the channel established between the peripheral units
(wireless keyboard 532 and wireless display 534) and user interface docking
device are completely different from" the disputed limitation. Reply Br. 5.
Appellant's single-sentence summary of Strommen and naked assertion that
Strommen is different than the disputed limitation fails to provide sufficient
evidence or reasoning to persuade us of Examiner error.
For the reasons discussed, Appellant has not shown error in the
Examiner's factual findings or conclusion of obviousness. Accordingly, we
sustain the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of independent claim 1 as
well as the rejection of independent claims 9 and 14, which Appellant argues
together with independent claim 1. See Appeal Br. 8-18. Dependent claims
2-8, 10-13, and 15-20 are not argued separately and so the rejections of
5
Appeal2017-010688
Application 13/946,482
these claims are sustained for the reasons given for independent claim 1.
See Appeal Br. 18.
DECISION
We AFFIRM3 the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
3 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should determine whether
independent claims 1, 9, and 14 meet the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, to particularly point out and distinctly define the metes
and bounds of the claimed subject matter. Namely, the Examiner should
determine whether there is antecedent basis for the limitation "the second
network members," as recited in claim 1 and for the limitation "the nodes,"
as recited in claims 9 and 14 (emphasis added), and whether "at least some
of the nodes," as recited in claims 9 and 14 is indefinite.
6