Ex Parte Gidlund et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2017

13693850 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
04189-P0115A 6664
EXAMINER
OVEISSI, MANSOUR
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
13/693,850 12/04/2012
137670 7590 02/
ABB - Whitmyer IP Group LLC
600 Summer Street
Stamford, CT 06901
Mikael Gidlund
02/03/2017 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 MIKAEL GIDLUND, TOMAS LENNVALL, and
JONAS NEANDER
Appeal 2016-000833
Application 13/693,850
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—19. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to an energy efficient method for
communication between a wireless sensor network and an industrial control
system. Spec., Title. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the
claimed subject matter:
Appeal 2016-000833
Application 13/693,850
1. A method for communication between a device node of a
wireless sensor network and control equipment of an industrial
control system, said network comprising a plurality of said
device nodes and a gateway, said method comprising
receiving a data packet from a said device node of said
network, said data packet including at least one encrypted part,
examining said received data packet received at the
gateway from a said device node in said network and checking
for presence of at least one indicator for data packet aggregation
indicating an aggregated data packet,
reconstructing, on finding at least one data packet
aggregation indicator, a first data packet included in the
aggregated data packet by
a) retrieving a source address of the first data
packet, and retrieving a decryption key associated
with the source address,
b) extracting data from the first data packet, and
decrypting using said decryption key one or more
encrypted data parts of the first data packet, and
transmitting the reconstructed first data packet to the
industrial control system.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Raissinia US 2008/0130538 A1 June 5,2008
Pratt US 2009/0054033 A1 Feb. 26,2009
REJECTION
The Examiner rejected claims 1—19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raissinia and Pratt. Ans. 6—15.
2
Appeal 2016-000833
Application 13/693,850
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTION1
Raissinia’s encapsulation of a management frame into a data frame
fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation of “a first data packet
included in the aggregated data packet” as required by the independent
claims. App. Br. 11—12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred in rejecting independent claims 1,10,
14, and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Raissinia
and Pratt. We agree with Appellants’ conclusions as to this rejection of the
claims.
Appellants argue “[encapsulating a management frame [as disclosed
by Raissinia] is not the same thing as the claimed data packet aggregation.”
App. Br. 12. According to Appellants, “Raissinia does not even disclose
aggregating data packets.” Id. Therefore, Appellants argue, Raissinia
additionally fails to teach or suggest the claimed steps directed to data
packets including (i) “a first data packet included in the aggregated data
packet” (id.); (ii) “at least one indicator for data packet aggregation
indicating an aggregated data packet” (id.); and (iii) “reconstructing, on
finding at least one data packet aggregation indicator, a first data packet
included in the aggregated data packet” (id.). The Examiner responds by
finding Raissinia’s (i) management frame and data frame aggregation
1 We note Appellants raise additional contentions of error but we do not
reach them as our resolution of this contention is dispositive of the appealed
rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
3
Appeal 2016-000833
Application 13/693,850
teaches or suggests data aggregation (Ans. 4); (ii) provision of indications of
an encapsulated management frame teaches or suggest the disputed
aggregated data packet indicator (Ans. 6); and (iii) “module 1604for de-
ciggregciting the aggregated data frame into individual data frames'1'’ teaches
or suggests the disputed step of reconstructing a first data packet included in
the aggregated data packet (Ans. 11).
We are not persuaded by the evidence cited by the Examiner that data
frame aggregation as disclosed by Raissinia teaches or suggests data packet
aggregation. Although we appreciate both a frame and packet are protocol
delivery units (PDUs), a packet (or “datagram”) is a layer 3 or “network
layer” PDU, while a frame is a layer 2 or “data link” PDU.2 * 4The Examiner
has failed to provide evidence or technical reasoning explaining why
Raissinia’s frame aggregation teaches or suggests data packet aggregation.
Although it may well be that one skilled in the art at the time of the
invention would have appreciated frame and packet aggregation are
interchangeable techniques or otherwise render each other obvious, we
decline to speculate. We note, in an ex parte appeal, the Board “is basically
a board of review—we review . . . rejections made by patent examiners.” Ex
parte Gambogi, 62 USPQ2d 1209, 1211 (BPAI 2001). “The review
authorized by 35 U.S.C. Section 134 is not a process whereby the examiner .
. . invite[s] the [Bjoard to examine the application and resolve patentability
in the first instance.” Ex parte Braeken, 54 USPQ2d 1110, 1112 (BPAI
1999). Because we are a board of review, and not a place of initial
2 See, e.g., InetDaemon, Frames, Packets, Datagrams, and PDU’s, retrieved
January 31, 2017, from http://www.inetdaemon.com/tutorials/
basic_concepts/communication/ frames_packets_n_pdus. shtml.
4
Appeal 2016-000833
Application 13/693,850
examination, we will not engage in the de novo examination that would be
required to supplement the Examiner’s findings in connection with the
disputed limitations of the independent claims. Therefore, absent a finding
including evidence or persuasive explanation bridging the divide between
aggregating frames and aggregating packets, we are constrained not to
sustain the rejection of independent claims 1, 10, 14, and 15 and dependent
claims 2—9, 11—13, and 16—19.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—19.
REVERSED
5