Ex Parte Cheng et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2018

12677487 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2018)

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.
12/677,487 03/10/2010 Jinxia Cheng 0201-0249 1937
03/19/201868103 7590
Jefferson IP Law, LLP
1130 Connecticut Ave., NW, Suite 420
Washington, DC 20036
EXAMINER
WONG, XAVIER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/19/2018 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):
u sdocketing @ j effersonip .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JINXIA CHENG and DAVID MAZZARESE
Appeal 2017-002451
Application 12/677,4871
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 11, 14, and 17-22. Claims 12, 13, 15, and 16 are indicated to be
allowable. Claims 1-10 have been canceled. Claims App’x. There are no
other claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Technology
The application relates to initializing protection devices in a wireless
communication system. Spec. 1.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co., Ltd. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2017-002451
Application 12/677,487
Illustrative Claim
Claim 11 is illustrative and reproduced below with the limitations at
issue emphasized:
11. A method for initializing a protection device (PD) in a
wireless regional area network (WRAN), the method
comprising:
searching a channel for determining the existence of a
primary protecting device (PPD) for a predetermined period;
if the PD determines that there is not the PPD on the
channel, acting as the PPD and broadcasting beacon information;
and
if the PD determines that there is the PPD on the searched
channel, acting as a secondary beacon transmission device
(SPD), receiving from the PPD a beacon information, and
attempting to contact the PPD,
wherein the WRAN uses frequency bands comprising at
least one frequency band which is locally selected from among
the frequency bands for a broadcast service.
Rejections
Claims 11 and 14 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as
anticipated by Lv et al. (IEEE P802.22 Wireless RANs - Backup Primary
Protecting Devices for Beacon Devices) (hereinafter “Lv”). Final Act. 3—4.
Claims 17, 18, 20 and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Lv and Celentano et al. (US 2008/0247366
Al). Final Act. 4-5.
Claims 19 and 22 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Lv, Celentano, and Kawamura (US 2003/0188028 Al).
Final Act. 5.
2
Appeal 2017-002451
Application 12/677,487
ANALYSIS
Claims 11 and 14
Independent claims 11 and 14 recite, in pertinent part, “wherein the
WRAN uses frequency bands comprising at least one frequency band which
is locally selected from among the frequency bands for a broadcast service.”
The Examiner interprets “locally” as meaning “within the wireless
regional area network (WRAN) system and network.” Ans. 3. We
understand the Examiner to construe “wherein the WRAN uses frequency
bands comprising at least one frequency band which is locally selected from
among the frequency bands for a broadcast service” to mean that one
frequency band is selected for use from within the WRAN. Using that
construction, the Examiner finds, referring to Lv, “the entire process is
performed ‘locally’ within the WRAN system (emphasis added by the
examiner / appellee) to choose a channel for broadcasting (page 5, sections 2
and 3 of Lv).” Id. We understand the Examiner to find that Lv describes at
least one frequency band is locally selected for use because the WRAN uses
frequency bands and the “entire process,” including “choos[ing] a channel
for broadcasting,” is performed locally, as in, locally selected for use within
the WRAN.
Appellants’ Specification does not address “wherein the WRAN uses
frequency bands comprising at least one frequency band which is locally
selected from among the frequency bands for a broadcast service.”2 See
2 Should further prosecution ensue, the Examiner might consider whether
Appellants’ Specification provides adequate written description support for
“wherein the WRAN uses frequency bands comprising at least one
frequency band which is locally selected from among the frequency bands
for a broadcast service.” 35 U.S.C. § 112(a).
3
Appeal 2017-002451
Application 12/677,487
generally Spec. Appellants’ “Summary of Claimed Subject Matter”
presented in their Appeal Brief (App. Br. 2) states that the limitation is
addressed on page 1, but we are unable to locate any reference to the
limitation there. See Spec. 1. Notably, Appellants do not squarely rebut the
Examiner’s construction of “locally” and do not offer an alternative
construction. See App. Br. 5-7; Reply Br. 2-4. Instead, Appellants
challenge the Examiner’s finding that Lv describes “the act of selecting.”
Reply Br. 3.
The Examiner’s rejection is not a model for clarity. Appellants do
not, however, persuade us of error in the Examiner’s broad construction of
the argued limitation, as we understand it. Finding no persuasive reason to
deviate from the Examiner’s broad construction, we agree with the
Examiner’s finding that Lv describes “wherein the WRAN uses frequency
bands comprising at least one frequency band which is locally selected from
among the frequency bands for a broadcast service” because Lv describes
selecting a channel for use by virtue of using it and that use of the selected
channel takes place within the WRAN.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 14,
argued on the same basis, and the Examiner’s rejections of claims 17-22,
which Appellants argue are patentable for similar reasons and because
Celentano and Kawamura do not cure the deficiencies of Lv. See App. Br.
7-8; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the reasons above, we affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting
claims 11, 14, and 17-22.
4
Appeal 2017-002451
Application 12/677,487
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5