Ex Parte Cordeiro et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

12638083 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/638,083 12/15/2009
57035 7590 03/23/2016
KACVINSKY DAISAK BLUNI PLLC
C/O CPA Global
P.O. BOX 52050
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55402
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Carlos Cordeiro
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.
P30757/1020P30757 4443
EXAMINER
TRAN,PAULP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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):
triddle@kdbfirm.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
docketing@kdbfirm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CARLOS CORDEIRO and SOLOMON TRAININ
Appeal2016-003552
Application 12/638,083
Technology Center 2600
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, THU A. DANG, and
JOHN D. HAMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.
DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2016-003552
Application 12/638,083
I. STATEivIENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8-19, 21, 24--28, and 30, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. Claims 4, 6, 7, 20, 22, 23, and 29
have been canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
A. INVENTION
According to Appellants, the invention relates to "establishing a
distributed contention-based period (CBP) for a directional wireless network
and transmitting information from a first device to a second device based on
one or more distributed CBP rules ... " (Abstract).
B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method, comprising:
detecting a distributed contention-based period (CBP) for
a directional wireless network, the distributed CBP comprising
a CBP wherein any device in the directional wireless network is
able to initiate transmission to any other device without carrier
sense when using one or more distributed CPB rules; and
transmitting information from a first device to a second
device based on the one or more distributed CBP rules, wherein
the transmission comprises a directional transmission.
C. REJECTION
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Maltsev et al.
("Maltsev")
US 2009/0073954 Al
2
Mar. 19, 2009
Appeal2016-003552
Application 12/638,083
Lee et al.
("Lee")
F arrag et al.
("F arrag")
US 2009/0067389 Al iviar. 12, 2009
US 2009/0103501 Al Apr. 23, 2009
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 12-17, 21, 24, 25, 28, and 30 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maltsev and Lee.
Claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 18, 19, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Maltsev, Lee, and Farrag.
II. ISSUE
The principal issue before us is whether the Examiner erred in finding
the combination of Maltsev and Lee teaches or would have suggested
"detecting a distributed contention-based period (CBP)" wherein "any
device in the directional wireless network is able to initiate transmission to
any other device without carrier sense when using one or more distributed
CPB rules" (Claim 1 (emphases added)).
III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
Maltsev
1. Maltsev discloses a wireless personal area network (WP AN)
composed of a piconet controller (PNC) and one or more communication
devices (DEVs), wherein the Channel Time Allocation Period (CTAP) is
divided by the PNC into time slots allocated for data transmission between
different nodes (DEV s) in the Time Division Multiple Access (TDMS)
manner so that only one transmission is happening in one time (i-f 18). The
3
Appeal2016-003552
Application 12/638,083
PNC tells the DEVs in the beacon messages their time slots to communicate
(i-f2 l ).
Lee
2. Lee discloses a radio communication system that can minimize
power consumption by eliminating the need for carrier detection (Abstract;
i-f23).
III. ANALYSIS
Appellants contend "every communication during the contention
access period in Lee is either to or from network coordinator 105" and "Lee
indicates that at any given point in the contention access period therein,
some devices will be inactive and thus not reachable by other devices" (App.
Br. 9-10). Although Appellants concede "Lee avoids the use of carrier
sense during the contention access period," Lee does so "by assigning the
various wireless devices to groups and restricting communications during
the contention access period such that they may only be to or from network
coordinator 105" (App. Br. 11). That is, although Appellants concede "the
high-level goal in Lee may be to minimize power consumption by
eliminating the need for carrier sensing," Appellants contend "the manner in
which Lee suggests achieving this goal clearly precludes the implementation
of a CBP wherein any device in a directional wireless network is able to
initiate transmission to any other device without carrier sense" (id.).
Appellants then contend "the 'pre-allocation or distribution of channel
time slots' in Maltsev applies to the Channel Time Access Period (CTAP),"
but "Maltsev contemplates a separate Contention Access Period (CAP) that
precedes the CT AP" and "the CT AP is clearly not a contention-based
period" (App. Br. 10). According to Appellants, applying Lee's approach
4
Appeal2016-003552
Application 12/638,083
"to the CAP in ivialtsev" would yield "a contention-based period during
which a given device would not be able to initiate transmission to any other
device except the PNC" (App. Br. 11 ).
We have considered all of Appellants' arguments and evidence
presented. However, we disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the
Examiner's rejection of the claims.
As an initial matter, we must give the claim its broadest reasonable
interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d
1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997). However, we will not read limitations from the
Specification into the claims. In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 1184 (Fed.
Cir. 1993).
Although Appellants contend Lee differs from the claimed invention
because "Lee clearly indicates that at any given point in the contention
access period therein, some devices will be inactive and thus not reachable
by other devices" (App. Br. 9-10), we note such contention is not
commensurate in scope with the recited language of the claims. That is, the
claim does not preclude some devices from being "inactive" at "any given
point" in the contention access period.
Furthermore, as the Examiner notes, "there is nothing in the claim
required that the directional transmission or a resource allocation must be
initiated within the period of the CBP" since claim 1 only states that "the
distributed CBP comprising a CBP" (Ans. 6).
As the Examiner finds, and we agree, Maltsev discloses "an adhoc
wireless personal area network (WP AN), in which each communication
device (DEV) directionally communicates with any one of the other
communication devices (DEVs)," using "the directional transmission and the
5
Appeal2016-003552
Application 12/638,083
allocated time slots configured in the Channel Time Access Period (CTAP)
of the TDMA frames" (Ans. 3--4; FF 1). We also find no error with the
Examiner's finding "Maltsev time slots distributed WPAN network
implicitly discloses the directional transmission done without carrier sense"
because "any communication device only need to read the assigned time
slots within the beacon message for any subsequent data transmission and
without a need for sensing carrier signal" (Ans. 4, citations omitted).
We also find no error with the Examiner's finding that although
Maltsev does not transmit data "within the CBP," Maltsev however "follows
the rules structured in signaling frame to detect a contention access period
(CAP or CBP) for receiving MAC commands, acknowledgement and data
frames transmission to control the data transmission of the wireless devices
of a directional wireless network" (Ans. 6, citations omitted). Thus, we find
no error with the Examiner's finding Maltsev discloses and suggests that the
devices in the directional wireless network are "able to initiate transmission
to any other device without carrier sense when using one or more distributed
CPB rules" (claim 1, emphasis added)
Nevertheless, the test for obviousness is not what Lee or Maltsev
individually shows, but what the combined teachings would have suggested
to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We also agree with the Examiner that, "[ s ]imilar to Maltsev, Lee ...
openly discloses a method of eliminating the carrier sense detection and uses
the distributed time slots allocated in a contention-based period (CBP) to
assign the transmission resource for each mobile device" (Ans. 4; FF 2).
Even Appellants concede "Lee avoids the use of carrier sense during the
6
Appeal2016-003552
Application 12/638,083
contention access period," wherein "the high-level goal in Lee may be to
minimize power consumption by eliminating the need for carrier sensing ..
. . "(App. Br. 11).
Accordingly, even assuming arguendo that our reviewing court were
to conclude that claim 1 required that the directional transmission or a
resource allocation must be initiated within the period of the CBP, we agree
with the Examiner's finding that the combination of Maltsev and Lee at least
would have suggested the contested limitation (Final Act. 2-9; Ans. 2---6).
Although Appellants contend applying Lee's approach "to the CAP in
Maltsev" would yield "a contention-based period during which a given
device would not be able to initiate transmission to any other device except
the PNC" (App. Br. 11 ), Appellants appear to have viewed the combination
from a different perspective than that of the Examiner. We agree with the
Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading Lee's teaching of
avoiding the use of carrier sense during the contention-based period, would
have found it obvious to provide Maltsev' s transmission between devices
without carrier sense during the contention-based period.
The Supreme Court has determined the conclusion of obviousness
can be based on the interrelated teachings of multiple patents, the effects of
demands known to the design community or present in the marketplace, and
the background knowledge possessed by a person having ordinary skill in
the art. KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). The skilled
artisan is "a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." Id. at 421.
We are not persuaded, and Appellants have presented no persuasive
evidence, that initiating transmission between devices without carrier sense
during the contention-based period, instead of, or as well as during other
7
Appeal2016-003552
Application 12/638,083
periods, is "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art." Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed.
Cir. 2007) (citing KSR, 550 U.S. at 418).
Accordingly, we find Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred
in finding the combination of Maltsev and Lee teaches or at least would have
suggested the contested limitations of claim 1 and independent claims 9, 17,
and 25 falling therewith (App. Br. 11 ). Appellants do not provide
substantive arguments for claims 5, 8, 12-16, 21, 24, 28, and 30 separate
from those of claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 from which they respectively depend
(App. Br. 11-12), and thus these claims fall therewith.
Appellants also do not provide substantive arguments for claims 2, 3,
10, 11, 18, 19, 26, and 27 separate from those of claims 1, 9, 17, and 25 from
which they respectively depend (App. Br. 12), and thus we also affirm the
rejection of these claims over Maltsev and Lee, in further view of Farrag.
IV. DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 5, 8-19, 21, 24--28,
and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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