Ex Parte GUICHARD et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 16, 2018

14842969 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 16, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
14/842,969 09/02/2015 Florent GUICHARD
11171 7590 11/20/2018
Patent Portfolio Builders, PLLC
P.O. Box 7999
Fredericksburg, VA 22404
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.
0337-059-CON/PI_0037 5535
EXAMINER
FOTAKIS, ARISTOCRATIS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2633
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/20/2018 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):
Mailroom@ppblaw.com
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FLO RENT GUICHARD, FABIEN LE MOINE, and
SOPHIE LOSTANLEN-NOUY
Appeal2018-003992 1
Application 14/842,969
Technology Center 2600
Before HUNG H. BUI, ADAM J. PYONIN, and MICHAEL M. BARRY,
Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
decision to reject all pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest is the assignee, SERCEL." Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003992
Application 14/842,969
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to "a method for setting frequency
channels in a multi-hop wireless mesh network comprising a plurality of
nodes." Spec. 8:26-28. Claims 1-22 are pending; of these, claims 1, 11,
and 19 are independent. Claim 1 is reproduced below for reference
( emphases added):
1. A method for communicating data in a seismic wireless
network, the method comprising:
providing a frequency channels hopping sequence S to
plural seismic nodes that form the seismic wireless network,
wherein the frequency channels hopping sequence S has a hop
period;
configuring the plural seismic nodes to hop from one
frequency to a next frequency in the frequency channels
hopping sequence S;
receiving seismic data at a first seismic node;
selecting, at the first seismic node, a transmit frequency
channel for transmitting an entire data packet, wherein the
transmit frequency channel has a frequency calculated based
on (i) a base frequency, (ii) a channel spacing, and (iii) a
sequence of integers; and
transmitting the entire data packet from the first seismic
node to a second seismic node with the selected transmit
frequency channel,
wherein a duration of transmitting any data packet by
any seismic node is strictly longer than the hop period, and
the first seismic node transmitting the data packet to the
second seismic node without polling between the first and
second nodes.
2
Appeal2018-003992
Application 14/842,969
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 7-9, 11, 15-17, 19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over Woo (US 2013/0013806 Al;
Jan. 10, 2013), Menard (US 2007/0025307 Al; Feb. 1, 2007), Qassim Nasir
& Maali Albalt, History Based Adaptive Backoff (HBAB) IEEE 802.11 MAC
Protocol, IEEE Communication Networks and Services Research
Conference (2008) (hereafter, "Nasir"), and Kung (US 4,654,859; Mar. 31,
1987). Final Act. 3---6.
Claims 2-6, 10, 12-14, 18, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) as being unpatentable over various combinations of Woo, Menard,
Nasir, Kung, and other prior art references. Final Act. 7-12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the issues raised by
Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP § 1205.02; see
also 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We are not persuaded the Examiner errs;
we adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions as our own, and we add
the following primarily for emphasis.
A. Selecting a Transmit Frequency Channel
Appellants argue the Examiner errs in finding the cited references
teach or suggest the "selected transmit frequency channel has a frequency
that is calculated based on (i) a base frequency, (ii) a channel spacing, and
(iii) a sequence of integers," as required by claim 1. Br. 7. Particularly,
Appellants contend that, "in the applied art ( either in Woo or in Kung), no
3
Appeal2018-003992
Application 14/842,969
calculation of a frequency of a transmit frequency channel is performed," as
"[a]ll the calculations presented by Kung ... refer to how to generate the
frequency hopping scheme (i.e., the frequency channels hopping sequence
S) and not to how to select and calculate a transmit frequency channel for
transmitting an entire data packet, as recited by the claims." Br. 9.
Appellants further argue the calculations taught by Kung do not "depend on
N, the asserted sequence of integers" (Br. 8) as Kung teaches "N is a single
number and not a sequence of integers" (Br. 10).
First, we are not persuaded the cited references fail to teach or suggest
the claimed selection of a transmit frequency channel. Kung, as relied on by
the Examiner, discloses methods of calculating output frequency Fout for a
given time period as part of a frequency hopping scheme. Kung 4:60-67;
see also Final Act. 5. Particularly, each frequency is calculated based on a
numerically-identified time period (for example from 0-15); thus, Kung
teaches "based on ... a sequence of integers" within the scope of the claim.
See Ans. 2-3, 5; Kung 4:7-36. Woo, as cited by the Examiner, further
teaches a "device in the frequency-hopping network configures its receiver
to follow a hopping schedule by picking a channel sequence, duration of
each time slot, and time base that defines when the first slot in the schedule
begins." Woo ,r 28; see also Final Act. 4. Appellants do not show the
Examiner errs in finding the combination of Woo and Kung teaches or
suggests the selecting limitation of claim 1. See Ans. 4.
Second, we note Appellants' contentions are based on a reading of the
claim as including a separate calculating step. We disagree. Claim 1
recites, inter alia, "selecting, at the first seismic node, a transmit frequency
channel for transmitting an entire data packet, wherein the transmit
4
Appeal2018-003992
Application 14/842,969
frequency channel has a frequency cal cul at er!' ( emphasis added). See, e.g.,
Spec. 3: 19--20 ("The general principle is that of using a frequency channels
hopping sequence (i.e. a 20 FHSS technique) to allow any node to select a
transmit frequency channel."). We see no patentable distinction between
Kung' s teaching of selecting a frequency based on a calculated frequency
hopping scheme, and the claimed step of selecting. See Ans. 4--5; Kung
2:25--47. Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive for not being
commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in
error. See Final Act. 4--5.
B. Any Data Packet
Appellants contend "Woo characterizes Figure 7 A in paragraph
[0052] by saying that 'there are times when the distributed message ( data
packet 140) is larger than what can fit within a single MAC frame."' Br. 11.
Appellants argue the Examiner's rejection is in error, because "there is no
disclosure in Woo that (1) any packet transmitted by (2) any seismic node is
longer than the hop period," as "[t]he fact that 'there are times' when the
distributed message is larger than a single MAC frame is not equivalent to
the claimed language that a duration of transmitting any packet by any
seismic node is strictly longer than the hop period." Br. 11.
The Examiner correctly finds "Woo, as clearly shown in Figures 7 A -
7B, teaches ... a packet (#140, Figures 7A and 7B) transmitted by a node
(two time slots, Figures 7 A and 78) that is longer than the hop period."
Ans. 6. Appellants do not persuade us that Woo's teaching of data packets
being longer than the hop period does not teach or suggest the claimed "a
5
Appeal2018-003992
Application 14/842,969
duration of transmitting any data packet by any seismic node is strictly
longer than the hop period." Ans. 6.
Additionally, during prosecution, claims are given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification as they would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. A cad. of Sci. Tech
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2004). However, "limitations are not to
be read into the claims from the specification." In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, Appellants do not argue that the method
of claim 1 requires communicating more than a single data packet. And
even assuming, arguendo, the claim requires multiple data packets, we note
the Specification describes an embodiment in which "[a]ll the data packets"
are "longer than the hop period." Spec. 9: 17-19 (emphasis added). In
contrast, claim 1 recites only that "any data packet" is longer ( emphasis
added). If Appellants wish to claim all of multiple data packets, the claims
can be amended during prosecution to reflect such a requirement. A broad
but reasonable interpretation by the Examiner reduces the possibility that the
claim, once issued, will be interpreted more broadly than is justified. In re
Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404---05 (CCPA 1969).
C. Reason for Combining
Appellants argue "the reason provided by the final Office Action to
combine the teachings of Woo and Kung is mistaken," because "[t]he
asserted fact that Kung is calculating a frequency for a transmit frequency
channel ... does not justify the need to 'perform frequency hopping."' Br.
12. Appellants contend "[ c ]alculating a frequency of a transmit frequency
channel has nothing to do with performing frequency hopping." Br. 12.
6
Appeal2018-003992
Application 14/842,969
We disagree. Both Woo and Kung teach frequency hopping by
selecting a channel that has a calculated frequency. See Ans. 6; Kung 1 :7-
10, 6:22--41; Woo ,r 2. Appellants do not provide any evidence of secondary
considerations, or otherwise show the Examiner errs in finding one of
ordinary skill would use Kung' s particular calculations in the frequency
hopping method of Woo. See Final Act. 4--5. Thus, we are not persuaded
the Examiner's rejection is based on anything other than a combination of
familiar elements yielding predictable results. See KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex,
Inc., 550 U.S. 398,416 (2007) ("The combination of familiar elements
according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
than yield predictable results.").
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in
error.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1.
Appellants advance no further argument for the remaining claims. Br. 7.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims for the
same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-22 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7