Ex Parte Billhartz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jan 10, 2012

10134948 (B.P.A.I. Jan. 10, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte TOM BILLHARTZ
____________________

Appeal 2009-013025
Application 10/134,948
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and
KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judges.

DESHPANDE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2009-013025
Application 10/134,948

2
STATEMENT OF CASE1
The Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22, 24-32, and 34-41, the only claims
pending in the application on appeal. We have jurisdiction over the appeal
pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

The Appellant invented mobile ad hoc wireless networks and related
methods. Specification ¶ 0001.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of
exemplary claim 1, which is reproduced below [bracketed matter and some
paragraphing added]:
1. A method for tracking traffic in a mobile ad hoc network
comprising a plurality of wireless mobile nodes and a plurality
of wireless communication links connecting the plurality of
nodes together, the method comprising:
[1] at each node, monitoring traffic communicated between
nodes throughout the network;
[2] at each node, generating monitored-traffic information
based upon how much monitored-traffic is being communicated
between various nodes throughout the network and including at
least one of error rate, end-to-end delay, end-to-end delay
variation, and hop count; and
[3] at each node, storing the monitored-traffic information in
a traffic database.

REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following prior art:

1 Our decision will make reference to the Appellant’s Appeal Brief (“App.
Br.,” filed Dec. 11, 2008) and the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.,” mailed Apr.
1, 2009).
Appeal 2009-013025
Application 10/134,948

3
Ahmadi
Phaal
US 5,233,604
US 5,450,408
Aug. 3, 1993
Sep. 12, 1995
Goto US 2001/0010717 A1 Aug. 2, 2001
Baker, F. “An Outsider’s View of MANET”, Network Working Group,
Cisco Systems, Mar. 17, 2002.

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-12, 14, 17-22, 24, 27-32, 34, and 37-41 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as being unpatentable over Baker and
Ahmadi.
Claims 5, 15, 25, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baker, Ahmadi, and Goto.
Claims 6, 16, 26, and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Baker, Ahmadi, and Phaal.

ISSUE
The issue of whether the Examiner erred turns on whether a person
with ordinary skill in the art would have been taught away from combining
the cited prior art.

ANALYSIS
The Appellant contends that the Examiner’s proposed combination is
improper since the person of ordinary skill in the art would be taught away
from selectively combining the features of Ahmadi’s hard wired static
network into the mobile ad-hoc network (MANET) of Baker, as per claims
1, 11, 21, and 31. App. Br. 10-11. Specifically, the Appellant argues that
MANETs lack any fixed infrastructure and therefore Ahmadi’s wired fixed
infrastructure teaches away from the claimed invention. App. Br. 10-11.
Appeal 2009-013025
Application 10/134,948

4
The Appellant reiterates this same argument with respect to the rejections of
claims 5-6, 15-16, 25-26, and 35-36. App. Br. 11-13.
We agree with and accordingly adopt the Examiner’s findings and
conclusions in the rejection and the Examiner’s response to this argument.
Ans. 3-5 and 11-13. The Examiner relied on Baker to teach a MANET and
only relied on Ahmadi to teach optimum paths between origin and
destination nodes that include the features of monitoring network traffic,
generating traffic information, and storing network traffic information as
required by claim 1. Ans. 3-5 and Ahmadi 2:53-65.
While Ahmadi teaches that communication links are permanent or
selectively enabled (Ahmadi 3:19-21), we agree with the Examiner’s finding
that there is nothing in Ahmadi that requires a fixed wired infrastructure.
Ans. 12. Furthermore, we find nothing in Ahmadi that would discourage a
person with ordinary skill in the art from modifying Baker to include the
features monitoring of network traffic at a node and generating and storing
the network traffic information. The Appellant has failed to provide any
persuasive evidence or rationale to illustrate why a person with ordinary skill
in the art would have not looked to Ahmadi for network traffic management
when implementing a MANET as described by Baker. As such, we find the
Appellant’s argument to not be persuasive.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22, 24-32, and
34-41.
Appeal 2009-013025
Application 10/134,948

5

DECISION
To summarize, our decision is as follows.
 The rejection of claims 1-2, 4-12, 14-22, 24-32, and 34-41 is
sustained.

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) (2010).

AFFIRMED

ke