Ex Parte Datz et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 16, 2013

11619450 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 16, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte CHARLES DATZ and NGAN-CHEUNG PUN
____________________

Appeal 2011-000241
Application 11/619,450
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before KALYAN K. DESHPANDE, BARBARA A. PARVIS, and
IRVIN E. BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judges.

BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-000241
Application 11/619,450

2

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-27, all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
The claims are directed to using link quality monitoring to maintain a
main communication pathway through a multipath, mobile node network.
Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A mobile ad hoc network comprising:
a plurality of mobile nodes comprising a source node, a
destination node, and a plurality of intermediate nodes
therebetween configured to establish a main communications
path and at least one alternative communication path thereby
defining a multipath communication pathway between said
source node and said destination node;
at least one of said intermediate nodes comprising a
controller and a wireless communications device cooperating
therewith to monitor link quality to neighboring nodes, and to
reconfigure the main communication path to the at least one
alternative communication path based upon the monitored link
quality.
References
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Cain
Wang
Isozu
US 2004/0029553 A1
US 2005/0201340 A1
US 2006/0268688 A1
Feb. 12, 2004
Sep. 15, 2005
Nov. 30, 2006
Appeal 2011-000241
Application 11/619,450

3

Rejections
Claims 1-4, 8, 10-15, 19-22, and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Cain. Ans. 4-8.
Claims 5-7, 16-18, and 23-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Cain and Isozu. Ans. 8-10.
Claims 9 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Cain and Wang. Ans. 10-11.

ANALYSIS1
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments in the Appeal Brief. We refer to the Brief and the Answer for the
respective positions of Appellants and the Examiner.
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Rejection of Claim 1
Appellants’ contentions present us with the issue of whether the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as anticipated by Cain.
Appellants argue that in Cain “the source node makes routing
decisions whereas in the claimed invention, the intermediate node
reconfigures the main communication path.” Br. 13. Appellants state that
the Examiner has applied an “unreasonably broad interpretation” of the
claims to find that Cain’s intermediate node sending error messages back to
the source node, which then are used by the source node to change
transmission routes, reads on the claim feature of the intermediate node
reconfiguring the main communication path. Id. at 13-14.

1 Appellants argue the rejections under different headings but base their
arguments for patentability only on the anticipation rejection. Accordingly,
we consider claim 1 as representative of all claims on appeal.
Appeal 2011-000241
Application 11/619,450

4
The Examiner finds that Cain describes that each mobile node in an ad
hoc network determines routes to a destination node, ranks the routes
according to at least one link metric, and distributes message data to the
destination node along a plurality of the discovered routes based on the rank.
Ans. 11, citing Cain, Figs. 1-4, and ¶16, ll. 5-17. We agree with the
Examiner’s interpretation that “[w]hen determining the routing of the
message data to a destination, each intermediate node is a source node to
other downstream intermediate nodes along the path.” Id. at 12. Said
differently, Cain describes that source nodes are intermediate nodes to
upstream source nodes or each node can serve as both a source node and an
intermediate node based on routing information. Appellants have not
provided any persuasive evidence or rationale to rebut such a finding. We
are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in concluding that Cain
describes “intermediate nodes . . . monitor[ing] link quality to neighboring
nodes, and [reconfiguring] the main communication path to the at least one
alternative communication path based upon the monitored link quality.”
Accordingly, we sustain the rejection of claim 1-4, 8, 10-15, 19-22,
and 26. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 5-7,
9, 16-18, 23-25, and 27 for the same reasons asserted in support of claim 1
and we sustain the Examiner’s rejections for the same reasons discussed
supra.

CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude the following.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-4, 8, 10-15, 19-22, and
26 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Cain.
Appeal 2011-000241
Application 11/619,450

5
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 5-7, 16-18, and 23-25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Cain and Isozu.
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 9 and 27 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious over Cain and Wang.

DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-27 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)(1)(iv) .

AFFIRMED

msc