12101333 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2014)

Ex Parte Bejerano

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardOct 27, 2014

12101333 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 27, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE 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 APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 12/101,333 04/11/2008 Yigal Bejerano 21 8018 7590 10/28/2014 Ryan, Mason & Leiws, LLP Suite 205 1300 Post Road Fairfield, CT 06824 EXAMINER PEREZ GUTIERREZ, RAFAEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2642 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/28/2014 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte YIGAL BEJERANO ____________________ Appeal 2012-004610 Application 12/101,333 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-004610 Application 12/101,333 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to coverage verification in a wireless sensor network. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method, comprising: obtaining an estimate of a distance between a first node in a wireless sensor network and each of a plurality of additional nodes within a transmission radius of said first node; determining a relative location of each of said plurality of additional nodes with respect to a coordinate system of said first node; identifying border segments of a sensing border of said first node, wherein each of said border segments comprises a section of the sensing border of said first node that is covered by a sensing radius of at least one of said additional nodes; and determining whether a plurality of said border segments forms a cyclic segment sequence for said first node. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Chen US 6,744,740 B2 June 1, 2004 Shang Liu Perumal Holland US 2005/0080924 A1 US 2005/0138200 A1 US 2007/0019594 A1 US 2009/0045939 A1 Apr. 14, 2005 June 23, 2005 Jan. 25, 2007 Feb. 19, 2009 Appeal 2012-004610 Application 12/101,333 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1–5, 8, 10, 12–16, and 18–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shang and Chen. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shang, Chen, and Holland. Claims 9 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shang, Chen, and Liu. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Shang, Chen, and Perumal. ANALYSIS Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds Chen teaches “identifying border segments of a sensing border of said first node, wherein each of said border segments comprises a section of the sensing border of said first node that is covered by a sensing radius of at least one of said additional nodes,” and that Shang teaches “determining whether a plurality of said border segments forms a cyclic segment sequence for said first node” (Ans. 5). Appellant argues that neither Chen nor Shang teaches “border segments” as claimed (App. Br. 6–7). We agree with Appellant. As defined in claim 1, a “border segment” is “a section of the sensing border of said first node that is covered by a sensing radius of at least one of said additional nodes.” We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that in Chen’s network “a center node may be within communications range of another center node, creating overlapping border segments where a border segment of a center node is covered by the sensing radius of a different center node as illustrated in Fig. 11” (Ans. 11). Chen discloses “each node Appeal 2012-004610 Application 12/101,333 4 can set up their own ‘Routing Zone.’ An individual node’s ‘Routing Zone’ consists of an area with the node in the center, and all the nodes that are within ‘x’ number of hops from the node.” (Chen, col. 7, ll. 33–38). Each node then builds a “Zone Routing Table” such that “each node has an entry for all the nodes within its ‘Routing Zone’” (Chen, col. 7, l. 50–col. 8, l. 47). “When a packet needs to be forwarded, a node first checks the destination address. If the destination address is listed in its Zone Routing Table, the node can simply send (or forward) any packet received to the ‘Next-hop Node’ indicated in the table. . . . This Route is shown in the coverage map of FIG. 11.” (Chen, col. 8, ll. 47–64). Thus, the ranges shown by the dashed circles in Chen’s Figure 11 represent the routing zones of respective nodes, i.e., the extent to which a node will transmit a packet to another node. Chen does not disclose that the dashed circles also show the sensing borders of the respective nodes. Rather, the words “sense” or “sensing” do not appear in Chen. We also disagree with the Examiner’s finding that in Shang’s Figure 5 the “‘dotted line’ is the central node’s border segment, and nodes outside of the central node’s border segment are not sensed and cannot be directly communicated with by the central node” (Ans. 10). The dotted ovals in Shang’s Figure 5 merely represent “a plurality of sub-networks 560, each containing a central node 530, neighbor nodes 510 . . . and additional nodes 520 . . .” (Shang, ¶ 43). Shang does not disclose that the dotted ovals representing the sub-networks also show the sensing borders of the respective central nodes. Even if Shang’s Figure 5 did show the sensing border of a central node, the Examiner has not shown that Shang discloses “determining whether border segments for that node form “a cyclic segment sequence,” as recited in claim 1. The Specification defines “a cyclic Appeal 2012-004610 Application 12/101,333 5 segment sequence” as “a sequence of border segments in which each of the border segments overlaps with at least two other border segments (and thereby fully covers the sensing border)” (Spec. 4:6–9). Shang’s Figure 5 does not show such full coverage of any of the alleged sensing borders (shown by dotted ovals 560), and the Examiner has not shown that Shang discloses performing such a determination of whether this full coverage exists. We are therefore constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 12 and 19 which recite commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2–11, 13–18, and 20 for similar reasons. CONCLUSION The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 are reversed. REVERSED ELD