Ex Parte Castagnoli

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 24, 2013

11213292 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte NEAL DANTE CASTAGNOLI
____________

Appeal 2011-001936
Application 11/213,292
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-001936
Application 11/213,292

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-26. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to time slot scheduling for nodes in a
hierarchical mesh network (See generally Spec. ¶ [0031]). Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. In a routing node for use in a hierarchical mesh
network, wherein the routing node is operative to implement a
data slot transmission schedule controlling transmission of data
between a parent routing node and at least one child routing
node, a method for scheduling data transfer, the method
comprising

receiving, at the routing node, slot scheduling
information from a parent routing node, wherein the slot
scheduling information indicates one or more time slots during
which the parent routing node has scheduled communications
with the routing node; and

computing, for the routing node, a data slot transmission
schedule that indicates time slots for transmission of data
between the parent routing node and at least one child routing
node based on the slot scheduling information received from
the parent routing node and the number of child routing nodes
associated with the routing node, such that the number of child
routing nodes associated with the routing node scheduled in any
cycle of the data slot transmission schedule is relatively prime
to the number of child nodes associated with the parent routing
node scheduled in the same cycle of the data slot transmission
schedule.

Appeal 2011-001936
Application 11/213,292

3
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Garcia-Luna-Aceves

Nelson
US 6,788,702 B1

US Pat. Pub.
2006/0209878 A1
Sept. 7, 2004

Sept. 21, 2006
(filed Mar. 21, 2005)

REJECTION
Claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nelson and Garcia-Luna-Aceves.

ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds Nelson discloses the claim 1 step of
computing, for the routing node, a data slot transmission
schedule . . . such that the number of child routing nodes
associated with the routing node scheduled in any cycle of the
data slot transmission schedule is relatively prime to the
number of child nodes associated with the parent routing node
scheduled in the same cycle of the data slot transmission
schedule

(Ans. 4-5).
Appellant contends
Nelson does not recognize the relatively prime relationship
between the number of child routing nodes associated with the
routing node and the number of child nodes associated with the
parent routing node scheduled in the same cycle of a data slot
transmission schedule, or any significance associated with this
relatively prime relationship, and consequently does not
actually compute any data slot transmission schedule that
satisfies this relatively prime relationship.

Appeal 2011-001936
Application 11/213,292

4
(App. Br. 14-15).
We agree with Appellant. Nelson does not disclose the positively
recited method step of
computing, for the routing node, a data slot transmission
schedule . . . such that the number of child routing nodes
associated with the routing node scheduled in any cycle of the
data slot transmission schedule is relatively prime to the
number of child nodes associated with the parent routing node
scheduled in the same cycle of the data slot transmission
schedule.

Claim 1.
Although the Examiner responds that “parent router 104d and child
router 104a can transmit such that there is a prime relationship between the
number of children for the parent and child nodes in the mesh network
respectively and thus meets the claimed limitation of ‘relatively prime’”
(Ans. 13), the Examiner does not identify specific disclosure in Nelson that
shows Nelson’s system actually performs the step of computing a
transmission schedule that satisfies the claimed “relatively prime”
relationship. The fact that nodes in Nelson’s mesh network can possibly
transmit in some relatively prime relationship falls short of disclosing or
suggesting the required step of computing the claimed transmission schedule
where “the number of child routing nodes associated with the routing node
scheduled in any cycle of the data slot transmission schedule is relatively
prime to the number child nodes associate with the parent routing node
scheduled in the same cycle of the data slot transmission schedule”. (Ans. 6).
Further, the Examiner does not show how Garcia-Luna-Aceves cures this
deficiency (see Ans. 5).
Appeal 2011-001936
Application 11/213,292

5
We are therefore constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred
in rejecting independent claim 1, independent claims 8 and 15 which recite
commensurate limitations, and dependent claims 2-5, 7, 9-12, 14, 16-19, and
21-26 for similar reasons.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19, and 21-26,
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-12, 14-19,
and 21-26.

REVERSED

tkl