Ex Parte del Prado Pavon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 19, 2013

10598647 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAVIER DEL PRADO PAVON, SAI SHANKAR
NANDAGOPALAN, KIRAN CHALLAPALI, and
JOERG HABETHA
____________________

Appeal 2010-010098
Application 10/598,647
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JUSTIN BUSCH, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s final rejections of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 - 15, 17, 20, 21, 23 - 30, 32,
33, 35 - 38, 40, 41, 43 and 45.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.3

1 Real Party in Interest is Koninklijke Philips Electronics, N. V.
2 Claims 2, 5, 16, 18, 19, 22, 31, 34, 39, 42 and 44 have been cancelled and
are not on appeal.
Appeal 2010-010098
Application 10/598,647

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ Invention
The next generation of USB (universal serial bus) technology is
wireless USB to provide all the functionalities of wired USB without the
inconvenience of wires and based on ultra wideband UWB radio. See
Appellants’ Spec. 1:7-11. According to Appellants, their invention relates
to a system and method for enabling wireless USB applications in a
distributed ultra wide-band MAC (medium access control). Id. at 5-6.
Claims on Appeal
Claims 1, 20, 28, 36, and 41 are independent claims on appeal. Claim
1 is representative of the invention, as reproduced below with disputed
limitations emphasized:

1. A method for host-device communication in a first
Wireless Universal Serial Bus (WUSB) network including a
host and at least one connected device, comprising:

beaconing according to a distributed Ultra WideBand
Medium Access Control (UWB MAC) protocol by the host and
the at least one connected device;

receiving Device Notification Traffic (DNT) by the host;
and

operating the WUSB network by the host according to
the capabilities of the connected devices, wherein an offset field
and a duration field in a Distributed Reservation Protocol
(DRP) are set to a multiple of a predetermined value if
distributed reservation is supported.

3 Our decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed January 29, 2010
(“App. Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed April 13, 2010 (“Ans.”); and the
original Specification filed September 7, 2006 (“Spec.”).
Appeal 2010-010098
Application 10/598,647

3

Evidence Considered
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Choi US 2004/0264428 A1 Dec. 30, 2004
Gu US 2005/0052995 A1 Mar. 10, 2005
Young US 2005/0169292 A1 Aug. 4, 2005

IEEE Standards 802.15.3™ for Information Technology – Part 15.3:
Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY)
Specifications for High Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)
(hereinafter “IEEE Standard”).

Examiner’s Rejections
(1) Claims 1, 6, 14, 15, 20, 28, 35, 36, 40 and 45 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Young and Choi. Ans.
3-7.
(2) Claims 4, 7 - 10, 12, 21, 24, 25, 33, 37, 38, 41 and 43 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Young, Choi,
and Gu. Ans. 7-9.
(3) Claims 3, 13, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 32 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Young, Choi, and IEEE Standard.
Ans. 9-10.

ISSUE
Based on Appellants’ arguments, the dispositive issue on appeal is
whether the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 6, 14, 15, 20, 28, 35, 36,
40 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Young and
Appeal 2010-010098
Application 10/598,647

4

Choi. The issue turns on whether the combination of Young and Choi
discloses or suggests the disputed limitations “beaconing according to a
distributed Ultra WideBand Medium Access Control (UWB MAC) protocol
by the host and the at least one connected device” and “wherein an offset
field and a duration field in a Distributed Reservation Protocol (DRP) are
set to a multiple of a predetermined value if distributed reservation is
supported,” as recited in independent claim 1.

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. Only those arguments actually made
by Appellants in the Appeal Brief have been considered. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions as to all rejections. We
adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal
Brief. We also concur with the conclusions reached by the Examiner and
further highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis
as follows.
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend that the
Examiner’s combination of Young and Choi does not disclose or suggest
“beaconing according to a distributed Ultra WideBand Medium Access
Control (UWB MAC) protocol by the host and the at least one connected
device.” App. Br. 8-9. In particular, Appellants argue that:
(1) “MBOA Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
Specification For High Rate Wireless Personal Networks (WPANs)
Appeal 2010-010098
Application 10/598,647

5

Specification, Draft 0.5, April 2004” does not contain any reference
to, and is not equivalent to the IEEE 802.15.3 standards (App. Br. 8-9;
Reply Br. 3-5); and

(2) Young discloses the IEEE 802.15.3 standards and
existing wireless system using a centralized topology, but does not
disclose or suggest the distributed Ultra WideBand Medium Access
Control (UWB MAC) protocol, and therefore, fails to disclose
“beaconing according to a distributed Ultra WideBand Medium
Access Control (UWB MAC) protocol by the host and the at least one
connected device” as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 9).

However, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. We agree
with the Examiner’s findings that the MBOA Wireless Medium Access
Control (MAC) Specification, including the distributed Ultra WideBand
Medium Access Control (MAC) protocol is equivalent to or part of the IEEE
Standard. Ans. 11-12. In contrast to the conventional centralized WPAN
MACs, such as Bluetooth, the MBOA MAC is based on a distributed
beaconing scheme for time synchronization, network topology control and
channel access coordination.4
Turning now to the substance of Appellants’ arguments, Young, as
correctly found by the Examiner, discloses a beacon broadcast scheme for
use in wireless personal networks. According to Young, the beacon
broadcast scheme is not limited to known device responsible for beacon
transmissions, e.g., access point in IEEE 802. 11 WLAN (AP) or coordinator

4 We note that MBOA Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
Specification, Draft 0.5, April 2004, is a candidate MAC solution proposed
by the MultiBand OFDM Alliance (MBOA) for wireless personal networks
(WPAN) for standardization by the IEEE 802.15 (see IEEE 802.15 Working
Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) at
www.ieee802.org/15/).
Appeal 2010-010098
Application 10/598,647

6

in IEEE 802.15.3 piconet (PNC) and IEEE 802.15.3 WPAN protocols, but
instead is applicable to any network protocol as long as the mechanism for
beacon timing is the same or similar to that of IEEE 802.15.3, including, for
example, MBOA Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC) Specification.
Ans. 11-14; also see Young, ¶[0026]. As such, we agree with the Examiner
that Young discloses or suggests the “distributed Ultra WideBand Medium
Access Control (UWB MAC) protocol” and the feature “beaconing
according to a distributed Ultra WideBand Medium Access Control (UWB
MAC) protocol by the host and the at least one connected device” as recited
in Appellants’ claim 1, as per MBOA Wireless Medium Access Control
(MAC) Specification. Ans. 12.
Appellants also contend that the Examiner’s combination of Young
and Choi does not disclose or suggest: “wherein an offset field and a
duration field in a Distributed Reservation Protocol (DRP) are set to a
multiple of a predetermined value if distributed reservation is supported,” as
recited in independent claim 1 (App. Br. 9-10). In particular, Appellants
argue that:
Choi . . . does not teach or suggest that the start time is a
multiple of any predetermined value[, and] ... does not disclose
that the offset field is set to a multiple of a predetermined value.
Therefore, Choi fails to cure the deficiencies present in Young
. . . because Choi does not teach or suggest that the offset field
and the duration field in the DRP are set to a multiple of a
predetermined value if distributed reservation is supported.

App. Br. 10 (emphasis added).

We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. As correctly found
by the Examiner, “Young discloses reservations are set to a predetermined
Appeal 2010-010098
Application 10/598,647

7

value.” Ans. 4 (citing Young, ¶¶[0034]-[0035]). Choi is simply cited for a
disclosure that “reservations are set to a multiple of a predetermined value.”
Ans. 4 (citing Choi, ¶[0048]). Claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation. See In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
(quoting In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2000)). Under the
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with Appellants’ Specification,5
we agree with the Examiner’s findings that transmission interval can take up
a multiple of time slots and that the start time is a multiple of any
predetermined value or a multiple of time slots. Ans. 14. Such time slots or
a multiple of time slots are within each reservation field following a beacon
header, as shown, for example, in FIG. 5 of Choi.
Based on the record before us, we find Appellants have not shown the
Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 as well as
independent claims 20, 28, and 36, which were argued for the same reasons
and fall therewith.
With respect to claim 41, Appellants only contend that the Examiner’s
combination of Young and Choi does not disclose or suggest “beaconing
according to a distributed Ultra WideBand Medium Access Control (UWB
MAC) protocol by the host and the at least one connected device.” App. Br.
13. As discussed supra, we agree with the Examiner that Young suggests
“beaconing according to a distributed Ultra WideBand Medium Access
Control (UWB MAC) protocol by the host and the at least one connected

5 See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2004).
Appeal 2010-010098
Application 10/598,647

8

device” as per MBOA Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
Specification. Ans. 12.
With respect to dependent claims 3, 4, 6-15, 17, 21, 23-27, 29-30, 32,
33, 35, 37-38, 40, 43 and 45, Appellants present no arguments for
patentability of these claims separately from claims 1, 20, 28, 36, and 41.
App. Br. 12-14. As such, we also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 3, 4, 6-15, 17, 21, 23-27, 29-30, 32, 33, 35, 37-38, 40, 43 and 45
under 35 U.SC §103(a) over various combinations of Young, Choi, Gu and
IEEE Standard.

CONCLUSION6
On the record before us, we conclude that the Examiner has not erred
in rejecting: (1) claims 1, 6, 14, 15, 20, 28, 35, 36, 40 and 45 under 35
U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Young and Choi; (2) claims 4, 7 -
10, 12, 21, 24, 25, 33, 37, 38, 41 and 43 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being
unpatentable over Young, Choi, and Gu; and (3) claims 3, 13, 23, 26, 27, 29,
30 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as being unpatentable over Young, Choi,
and IEEE Standard.

6 We note that MBOA Wireless Medium Access Control (MAC)
Specification, Draft 0.5, April 2004, was submitted late as part of the Reply
Brief on June 11, 2010 for the Examiner’s consideration. However, the
Examiner has not had the chance to review the same. We further note that
the MBOA MAC Specification predates the prior provisional filing date of
this application on July 13, 2004, and, therefore, qualifies as prior art against
all pending claims in this application. In the event of further prosecution, we
leave it to the Examiner to evaluate the MBOA MAC Specification and
determine whether independent claims 1, 20, 28, 36, and 41 are in
compliance with 35 U.S.C. § 102 and § 103 in view of the MBOA MAC
Specification.
Appeal 2010-010098
Application 10/598,647

9

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6 - 15, 17,
20, 21, 23 - 30, 32, 33, 35 - 38, 40, 41, 43 and 45.
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) (2011).

AFFIRMED

msc