13198748 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

Ex Parte Gabara

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 26, 2018

13198748 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/198,748 08/05/2011 84070 7590 03/27/2018 Thaddeus Gabara 62 Burlington Rd Murray Hill, NJ 07974 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Thaddeus Gabara 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. MasterSlaveOl 8415 EXAMINER BOUSONO, ORLANDO ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2685 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 03/27/2018 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 THADDEUS GABARA Appeal2017-009356 Application 13/198, 7 48 Technology Center 2600 Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 22-25, 27, 29-32, 34, 36-39, and 41--46, which are all the pending claims. Claims 1-21, 26, 28, 33, 35, and 40 have been cancelled. App. Br. 13-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm-in-part. 1 Appellant identifies TrackThings LLC as the real party in interest. App. Br. 1. Appeal2017-009356 Application 13/198, 7 48 Introduction Appellant's Specification describes networks with master and slave nodes, with embodiments that allow nodes to switch between master and slave roles. See, e.g., Spec. i-fi-1 2, 72-7 6, Figs. 2a-s. In some embodiments, slave nodes communicate with each other exclusively through the master node. See, e.g., Spec. i183, Fig. 3c---d. Claims 41 and 43 are illustrative of the claims on appeal: 41. An intelligent network comprising: a first node of a plurality of nodes assigned as a master node; all remaining nodes of said plurality of nodes assigned as slave nodes; said master node coupled by a direct bidirectional link to each one of said slave nodes, wherein each said slave node exclusively communicates information with another slave node through said master node; one of said slave nodes assigned by said intelligent network as a current master node; said first node assigned by said intelligent network as a new slave node; and said current master node coupled by a new direct bidirectional link to each of said slave nodes. 43. A method of assigning a new master node in an intelligent network formed from a plurality of nodes comprising the steps of: assigning a master node from one of said plurality of nodes; assigning all remaining nodes of said plurality of nodes as slave nodes; coupling said master node to each one of said slave nodes with a direct bidirectional link; 2 Appeal2017-009356 Application 13/198, 7 48 exclusively coupling each said slave node with said master node; transferring information from said master node to any one of said slave nodes; informing all nodes of a new node assignment; assigning one of said slave nodes as said new master node; assigning said master node as a new slave node; and coupling said new master node to each one of said slave nodes by a new direct bidirectional link. App. Br. (Claims App'x) 15 (disputed limitation emphasized), 16. Rejections and References Claims 22, 29, 41, and 42 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rael (US 2006/0064533 Al; Mar. 23, 2006), Shay (US 2007/0153774 Al; July 5, 2007), and Boccola (US 2012/0001765 Al; Jan. 5, 2012). Final Act. 2---6. Claims 23, 30-32, 36, 37, and 43 stand rejected underÂ§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rael, Shay, Boccola, and Warner (US 2011/0176464 Al; July 21, 2011 ). Final Act. 6-10. Claims 24, 25, 38, 39, and 46 stand rejected underÂ§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rael, Shay, Boccola, Warner, and Massara (US 2009/0196016 Al; Aug 6, 2009). Final Act. 10-14. Claims 27 and 34 stand rejected underÂ§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rael, Shay, Boccola, and Brown (US 6,163, 538; Dec. 19, 2000). Final Act. 14--15. Claims 44 and 45 stand rejected underÂ§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Rael, Shay, Boccola, and Massara. Final Act. 15-16. 3 Appeal2017-009356 Application 13/198, 7 48 ANALYSIS The Board "reviews the obviousness rejection[ s] for error based upon the issues identified by appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon," and treats arguments not made as waived. Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011)); see also 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). In rejecting claim 41, the Examiner finds Boccola teaches the disputed limitation that "each said slave node exclusively communicates information with another slave node through said master node." Final Act. 5 (citing Boccola i-fi-133--40). Appellant argues the Examiner errs in the rejection because "Boccola fails to teach that each said slave node exclusively communicates information with another slave node through said master node," as recited. App. Br. 9. Specifically, Appellant contends "Boccola remains silent that the 'monitoring device' (Examiner's slave node) can exclusively communicate information with another slave node." Id. at 10. We agree with Appellant. Boccola discloses a master electronics module that corresponds to a worker and slave electronic modules for each piece of a worker's monitored equipment. Boccola i-fi-134--35. Boccola teaches its slave electronic modules communicate exclusively with the master module, which acquires and stores information from the slave modules. Id. i-fi-137-39. The master module then communicates the stored information to corresponding monitoring devices. Id. i140. The Examiner finds that because Boccola's monitoring devices are also "slave nodes," which receive information from a slave module through the master module, Boccola thereby teaches exclusively communicating 4 Appeal2017-009356 Application 13/198, 7 48 information from one slave node to another slave node through the master node, as recited. Final Act. 5. The disputed limitation, however, requires each slave node to exclusively communicate information with another slave node through the master node. The monitoring devices of Boccola receive information from the master module and communicate information to a central control and monitoring unit. Boccola i-fi-1 40-41. In other words, the master module communicates with the monitoring devices, which in tum communicate with the central control and monitoring unit. There is no finding that Boccola's central control and monitoring unit constitutes a slave node, much less that the monitoring devices communicate information exclusively through the master module to the central control and monitoring unit. The Examiner does not explain how or why Boccola teaches or suggests its monitoring device "slave nodes" exclusively communicate information with another slave node through the master node, as recited. Thus, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner errs in finding Boccola teaches or suggests the disputed limitation and, accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 41. For the same reason we do not sustain the rejection of claim 42, for which the Examiner relies on Boccola for teaching its similar requirement that "each slave node communicates information exclusively with another slave node through said master node." See Final Act. 5---6 and App. Br. 15 (Claims App'x). We also, therefore, do not sustain the rejections of claims 22-25, 27, 29-32, 34, 44, and 45, which depend, directly or indirectly, from claim 41 or 42. Appellant argues the Examiner errs in rejecting claim 43 for the same reason discussed above for claim 41. App. Br. 9-11. Claim 43, however, 5 Appeal2017-009356 Application 13/198, 7 48 does not recite a requirement for each slave node to exclusively communicate information with another slave node. Appellant argues "exclusively coupling each said slave node with said master node" and "transferring information from said master node to any one of said slave nodes," as recited in claim 43, is effectively the same requirement as the disputed limitation of claim 41. App. Br. 9--10. As the Examiner responds, however, and we agree, the plain meaning of claim 43 does not require each slave node to communicate information to another slave node through the master node. Ans. 5. Appellant's argument for claim 43, thus, is unpersuasive as not commensurate with the scope of the claim and, therefore, we sustain its rejection. We also, accordingly, sustain the rejection of its dependent claims 36-39 and 46, for which Appellant makes no separate arguments. DECISION For the above reasons, we reverse the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejections of claims 22-25, 27, 29--32, 34, 41, 42, 44, and 45, and we affirm theÂ§ 103(a) rejections of claims 36-39, 43, and 46. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED-IN-PART 6