Ex Parte Cai et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 11, 2015

12916214 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 11, 2015)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/916,214 10/29/2010
82313 7590 12/15/2015
Conley Rose - BlackBerry Files
Attn: J. Robert Brown
5601 Granite Parkway, Suite 500
Plano, TX 75024
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zhijun Cai
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.
34656-US-DIV
(4214-14402)
EXAMINER
MUI, GARY
9174
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2464
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/15/2015 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):
ConleyRoseReporting@dfw.conleyrose.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZHIJUN CAI, JAMES EARL WOMACK, and YI YU
Appeal2013-010059
Application 12/916,214
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2013-010059
Application 12/916,214
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-10. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows
(emphasis added):
1. An access node comprising:
a processor configured to:
provide an address indicating one of a plurality of relay nodes
and further indicating one of a plurality of user agents; and
promote transmission of the address to the one of the plurality
of relay nodes and to the one of the plurality of user agents.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
as being anticipated by Adachi et al (US 2009/0010199 Al; Jan. 8, 2009). 1
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 8, and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Adachi and Ji et al (US
2009/0325480 Al; Dec. 31, 2009). The Examiner also rejected claims 5 and
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 6, and 7. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
2
Appeal2013-010059
Application 12/916,214
10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of
Adachi and You et al (US 2003/0103480 Al; June 5, 2003). 2
Appellants' Contention
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
because:
Adachi discloses a system wherein the access node does not
provide an address for transmission throughout the entire
multi-hop path. Rather, in Adachi, each network element
provides its own address for its particular hop in the multi-
hop transmission. Therefore, according to Adachi, when an
access node transmits data to a user agent via a relay node, the
access node provides an address for the single hop from the
access node to the relay node and transmits the address to the
relay node only. Then, the relay node provides another address
for the hop from the relay node to the user agent and transmits
this other address to the user agent. Therefore, because the only
address transmitted to a user agent is provided by a relay node
and not by the access node, Adachi does not disclose an access
node configured to provide an address indicating a relay
node and a user agent and promote transmission of the
address to the relay node and to the user agent, as described in
claims 1 and 6.
App. Br. 11-12, some emphases added.
2. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because:
[I]n the Adachi system, a MAC header provided by an access
node is transmitted only to a relay node and the relay node does
not retransmit the same MAC header to other network
components. Instead, the relay node provides a new MAC
2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3-5 and 8-10. Rather, these
claims are argued by reference to claims 1 and 6. The rejection of these
claims turns on our decision as to the underlying§ 102 rejection. Except for
our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal2013-010059
Application 12/916,214
header particular to its specific hop m the multi-hop
transmission.
App. Br. 12, emphases added.
3. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because:
[T]he Examiner relied upon Adachi's description of scenarios
when the ToDS field is set to 11 l 11 and which therefore do not
pertain to transmissions to a user agent. See pages 2-4 of the
Final Office Action. For example, the Examiner cited
paragraphs [0056]-[0058] and [0064] of Adachi, which describe
the MAC headers shown in row (d) and row (e) of FIG. 7.
However, the MAC headers shown in row ( d) and row ( e) each
have the 11 ToDS 11 field set to 11 l11 and thus are not for
transmission to a user agent.
App. Br. 13.
4. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because:
In Adachi, a MAC header transmitted by an access node
to a user agent cannot identify a relay node. The only MAC
header formats disclosed by Adachi that may be transmitted to
a user agent are the formats shown in row (a) and row (b) of
FIG. 7. See Adachi at i-f [0056] and FIG. 7. Row (a) of FIG. 7
refers to situations when transmissions are sent from a network
element not comprising an access node or a relay node and is
therefore not relevant to the current discussion. Row (b) of
FIG. 7 comprises a 11 111 in the FromDS field and thus refers to
transmissions from an access node or relay node to a user agent.
Hence, if an access node provides and transmits a MAC header
to a user agent, then the MAC header will have the format
shown in row (b) of FIG. 7. As such, if an access node provides
and transmits to a user agent a MAC header, then the MAC
header must identify the user agent as the receiver address
(RA), identify the access node as the transceiver address (TA),
and identify the access node as the source address (SA). Adachi
at i-f [0062] and FIG. 7. Therefore, the only instances when a
4
Appeal2013-010059
Application 12/916,214
MAC header is transmitted by an access node to a user agent
are when the transmission is a direct transmission that does
not involve a relay node. See Adachi at i-f [0062].
App. Br. 14--15, bolded italics added.
5. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because:
In Adachi, a MAC header transmitted by a relay node is
generated by the relay node using address tables and is not
provided by the access node. As explained above, the purpose
of Adachi is to eliminate the need for an access node to try to
identify intermediary network elements in a multi-hop
transmission. Addachi [sic] at i-fi-1 [0007], [0050]. In doing so,
Adachi introduces relay nodes configured to provide their own
MAC headers independently of the access node. Because the
relay nodes of Adachi do not simply rely on information
provided by access node but instead use the address tables to
provide their own MAC headers, the relay nodes can transmit
data to a final relay node in a multi-hop transmission even if the
final relay node cannot be determined by the access node.
Adachi at ,-r [0079]-[0080].
App. Br. 16. Appellants present similar arguments directed to
Adachi's i-fi-1[41]-[46] and [74]-[ 75]. App. Br. 16-17.
6. Appellants further contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1 because:
The Examiner's Answer further asserts that "[t]he address will
remain the same however location of the address in the data
frame will be changed". Examiner's Answer at p. 10 (citing
Adachi, i-f [0065]) (Emphasis added). Thus, as indicated in the
Examiner's Answer, Adachi discloses that multiple addresses
may be indicated in multiple fields in a MAC header (see, e.g.,
Adachi, Figs. 4 and 6), and each of these addresses indicates a
different node, e.g. a source node, a destination node, a relay
node, etc. However, nothing in Adachi teaches that an access
node provides "an address indicating one of a plurality of
5
Appeal2013-010059
Application 12/916,214
relay nodes and further indicating one of a plurality of user
agents", as provided in claims 1 and 6.
Reply Br. 5, bolding and italics added.
Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 because Adachi fails to
teach the argued limitations?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants' above contention 1, we disagree. Appellants'
Specification states that "the address comprises a first set of bits and a
second set of bits. The first set of bits identifies a corresponding relay node
and the second set of bits identifies a corresponding U A [user agent] within
a donor cell of the corresponding relay node." Spec. i-f 57. Nothing more is
required to be an address as claimed. Although we agree with Appellants
that each network element provides its own address (as part of varying TA
and RA), Appellants overlook that the MAC Header also provides address
information for one of a plurality of relay nodes and for one of a plurality of
user agents. The claim language does not preclude additional information
(even variable information) being provided as in Adachi. The Examiner
correctly points out that in Adachi at paragraph 65, there is disclosed address
information (Relay DA, Relay SA, DA, and SA corresponding to a first set
of bits identifying a corresponding relay node and a second set of bits
identifying a corresponding user agent) that will "remain the same" as the
6
Appeal2013-010059
Application 12/916,214
MAC addresses are transmitted through the network. Ans. 10-11. That
other portions of the MAC Header do change is not relevant.
As to Appellants' above contention 2, we disagree. The point
Appellants make is simply of no moment. Generating a new MAC Header
is not precluded by the claim language so long as the claimed "address"
information is provided in some way to both the one of the plurality of relay
nodes and the one of the plurality of user agents. Nothing more is required
by the claim language.
As to Appellants' above contentions 3 and 4, we disagree. Appellants
again focus on the variable portions of the MAC Header but overlook the
static portions that are relevant to the claim limitations. That the ToDS and
FromDS fields vary (depending on the type of terminals) as the MAC
Header is transmitted from terminal to terminal is not relevant.
As to Appellants' above contention 5, we disagree. Appellants refer
to Adachi at i-fi-17 and 50 to show that "the relay nodes of Adachi do not
simply rely on information provided by access node but instead use the
address tables to provide their own MAC headers." Appellants are
mistaken. Paragraphs 7 and 50 of Adachi reference the prior art to Adachi,
which operates based on address tables. Then Adachi states "it is sometimes
impossible to obtain the address tables" (Adachi i150) and proceeds to
present embodiments where address information (as claimed) is provided in
a MAC Header by the access node.
As to Appellants' above contention 6, we disagree. Contrary to
Appellants' argument that "nothing in Adachi teaches that an access node
provides 'an address indicating one of a plurality of relay nodes and further
indicating one of a plurality of user agents"' (Reply Br. 5), Adachi at i1 65
7
Appeal2013-010059
Application 12/916,214
explicitly states "data generated by the wireless communication terminal 101
to the communication terminal 301 in FIG. 1, for example, the RA, the TA,
the Relay SA, and the SA in a data frame."
CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 2, 6, and 7 as
being anticipated under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 3-5 and 8-10 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1-10 are not patentable.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10 are 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
ELD
8