Ex Parte CHOI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 15, 2016

12183196 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/183,196 07/3112008
66547 7590 08/15/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P,C
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Woo-Jun CHOI
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.
678-3539 (Pl6421) 5178
EXAMINER
FLEMING-HALL, ERICA L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2647
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
08/15/2016 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 WOO-JUN CHOI, JAE-HO KIM,
JEONG-EUN LEE, YOUNG-SEOP HAN,
and DAE-HYUN SIM
Appeal2014-001184
Application 12/183, 196
Technology Center 2600
Before THU A. DANG, DENISE M. POTHIER, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
POTHIER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14--22. App. Br. 3; Final
Act. 1. 1 Claims 3, 6, 10, and 13 were canceled in an amendment filed July
28, 2011. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the Final Action mailed October 3,
2012, Appeal Brief (App. Br.) filed April 1, 2013, the Examiner's Answer
(Ans.) mailed August 28, 2013, and the Reply Brief (Reply Br.) filed
October 28, 2013.
Appeal2014-001184
Application 12/183, 196
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants' invention relates to channel switching methods in a
ZigBee network system, which is a type of Personal Area Network (PAN).
Spec. 1:14--16, 25-27. "A mobile communication terminal can connect with
a headset using ZigBee communication ... and can control the connected
headset to transmit and reproduce multimedia data." Spec. 1:25-27. At
times, the mobile communication terminal closes its connection with an old
PAN to access another PAN, resulting in the connection between the headset
and the old PAN being disconnected. Spec. 2: 11-13. This invention
attempts to reduce the reconnection time between the headset and the mobile
communication terminal. Spec. 3: 17-19.
Claim 1 is reproduced below:
1. A short-range communication method of a node in a
short-range personal wireless communication system in which
communication is performed bet\'l/een at least one Personal ii~rea
Network (PAN) and multiple nodes, the method comprising the
steps of:
monitoring a peripheral PAN to perform short-range
communication, and selecting at least one PAN as a result of the
monitoring;
generating channel information for the selected PAN; and
transmitting the generated channel information to a
peripheral device connected to the node, and connecting with the
selected PAN,
wherein monitoring the peripheral PAN is achieved while
performing short-range communication with another PAN other
than the peripheral PAN, and
wherein the node releases the connection with the peripheral
device before connecting with the selected PAN.
2
Appeal2014-001184
Application 12/183, 196
The Examiner relies on the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Crosbie
Seshadri
Mahany
US 2002/0085719 Al
US 2006/0183425 Al
US 2008/0095126 Al
The Rejection
July 4, 2002
Aug. 17, 2006
Apr. 24, 2008
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, and 14--22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Seshadri, Mahany, and Crosbie. Ans. 3-19.
CONTENTIONS
For independent claim 1, Appellants argue Seshadri and Mahany do
not teach monitoring a PAN or selecting a PAN as recited. App. Br. 5.
Appellants further assert Seshadri, Mahany, and Crosbie do not teach
channel information for a selected PAN is transmitted to a device and a
connection with the device is released before connecting to the selected
Although separating the discussion of independent claims 8, 14, and
22 from independent claim 1 (App. Br. 4--6), Appellants present the same
argument by referring back the "the reasons presented above with regard to
Claim 1." App. Br. 6. As such, we group claims 1, 8, 14, and 22 together
and treat claim 1 as representative. 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
ISSUE
Under§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding
Seshadri, Mahany, and Crosbie teach or suggest
( 1) monitoring a peripheral PAN to perform short-range
communication, and selecting at least one PAN as a result of the monitoring,
3
Appeal2014-001184
Application 12/183, 196
(2) transmitting the generated channel information to a peripheral
device, and
(3)the node in the short-range personal wireless communication
system releases the connection with the peripheral device before connecting
with the selected PAN?
ANALYSIS
Based on the record before us, we find no error in the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1. Concerning the argument that Seshadri
and Mahany do not teach monitoring a PAN or selecting a PAN as recited
(App. Br. 5), the Examiner relies on Seshadri for this recitation. Final
Act. 2; Ans. 3--4, 19-20 (citing Seshadri i-fi-123, 29, 39, 67). Specifically, as
explained by the Examiner (Ans. 3), Seshadri discloses dual communication
pathways exist (e.g., more than one PAN) in its system and allow for
communications to switch depending on a communication quality (e.g.,
signal strength). See Seshadri i139, cited in Ans. 19. Seshadri further
teaches the PAN s communicatively couple base units to wireless headsets to
allow for communication pathways. Seshadri i123, cited in
Ans. 3--4.
As such, these teachings suggest to one skilled in the art that
Seshadri's PANs are monitored (e.g., signal strength examined) and at least
one PAN is selected to allow communication pathways to be switched based
on the communication quality. Seshadri i139. Notably, Seshadri's
discussion is similar to the disclosure at steps S48 and S76, describing
searching for PANs when the system intends to switch the PAN.
Spec. 15:13-14, 16:14--16, Figs. 3--4, both cited in App. Br. 2 n.2.
4
Appeal2014-001184
Application 12/183, 196
Appellants provide no rebuttal to Examiner's explanation of Seshadri and
how Seshadri teaches the disputed claim language. See generally Reply Br.
The Examiner further refers to Seshadri's discussion in paragraph 67
to teach the disputed monitoring and selecting steps. Here, Seshadri teaches
a parallel communication path is established at step 1004 when a handoff
may be required. Seshadri i-f 67. As noted in the rejection (Ans. 3--4 (citing
Seshadri i-fi-123, 29, 67)) and as admitted by Appellants (App. Br. 4),
Seshadri teaches the wireless headset may handover communications
between base station( s) associated with different PAN s. Seshadri i-f 23.
Seshadri further teaches and shows how communication services handoff
occur, including those between PAN s. Seshadri i-f 67, Fig. 11.
In particular, at step 1006, the communication quality (e.g., signal
strength) between the wireless device and the PAN are monitored to
determine whether handoff is required. Id. If handoff is required, one the
communication paths is dropped and service continues with the remaining
pathways. Id. As such, this process in Seshadri involves monitoring signal
strength related to a PAN and continuing service with remaining pathways
(e.g., PANs), which also selects at least one PAN as a result of monitoring.
See id.; see also Ans. 19-20 (explaining how Seshadri monitors and selects
PANs). Thus, contrary to Appellants' assertion (App. Br. 5), Seshadri
teaches monitoring a peripheral PAN and selecting at least one PAN as a
result of the monitoring as recited in claim 1.
As for the second, major argument, Appellants summarize Seshadri,
Mahany, and Crosbie and then assert that they do not teach transmitting
channel information for a selected PAN to a device and releasing a
connection with the device before connecting to the selected PAN. App.
5
Appeal2014-001184
Application 12/183, 196
Br. 5; Reply Br. 1-2. Although the Examiner finds Seshadri discloses many
of claim 1 's limitations, including connecting the node with the selected
PAN (Ans. 3--4), the Examiner states Seshadri does not disclose the
recitations of "transmitting the generated channel information to a peripheral
device connected to the node" (Ans. 4) and "the node releases the
connection with the peripheral device before connecting with the selected
PAN" (Ans. 5). The Examiner turns to Mahany in combination with
Seshadri to teach the recited transmitting channel information in claim 1 and
to Crosbie in combination with Seshadri and Mahany to teach the recited
node releasing the peripheral device connection before connecting with the
selected PAN. Ans. 4---6, 20-21 (citing Mahany i-fi-f 173-178 and Crosbie
,-r,-r 12, 14, 20).
We determine the Examiner's position is reasonable and that the
references, when combined, yield no more than one would expect - the
recited steps of (1) generating channel information for a selected PAN and
(2) the node releasing the peripheral device connection before connecting a
selected PAN. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Namely, Seshadri teaches joining to PANs and Mahany teaches broadcasting
channel information (e.g. network ids and types) of networks (e.g., PAN s)
for joining. Seshadri i1i123, 39 and Mahany i-fi-f 173-177. Also, as discussed
above, Seshadri teaches a node (e.g., a base station) connecting to a PAN
and Crosbie further teaches certain scenarios where a master device
disconnects with a slave device (e.g., releases a connection with a peripheral
device) before establishing a new radio link and PPP link with the most
appropriate access point (APs) that connects back to a master controller. See
Seshadri i1i123, 29, 39 and Crosbie i-fi-f 12, 14, cited in Ans. 3-6, 19-20.
6
Appeal2014-001184
Application 12/183, 196
Thus when combined, the combination of references suggests the recited
transmitting step and suggests the recited step of the node releasing a
connection with the peripheral device before connecting to a PAN. Ans.
3---6. Appellants provide no evidence to the contrary in the Appeal Brief.
App. Br. 5.
For the first time the Reply Brief, Appellants assert Crosbie's
"relationship involves only a single type of connection, i.e., between a
mobile device and an AP" but the claim recites two different types of
connections ("i.e., between a node and a peripheral device and between a
node and a PAN.") Id. Appellants further argue for the first time that
Seshadri, Mahany, and Crosbie "fail[] to disclose a sequence in which
information transmission, peripheral device disconnection, and PAN
connection occurs at a node." Id. Notably, new arguments in a reply brief
shall not be considered unless good cause is shown. 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41 (b )(1 ). Appellants have not shown good cause for raising these
arguments for the first time in the Reply Brief. To the extent that the
arguments are not considered waived, we refer to the Examiner's findings
and analysis of claim 1 and what the collective references suggest as
discussed above and in the Answer. See Ans. 3---6.
For the foregoing reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us of error
in the rejection of (1) independent claim 1, 8, 14, and 22 and (2) dependent
claims 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12, and 15-21 for similar reasons.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12,
and 14--22 under§ 103.
7
Appeal2014-001184
Application 12/183, 196
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-9, 11, 12, and
14--22 is 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
8