Ex Parte Habetha et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 10, 201410597543 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 10, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOERG HABETHA, GUIDO HIERTZ, JAVIER DEL PRODA RAVON, KIRAN CHALLAPOALI, and SAI SHANKAR NANDAGOPALAN ____________ Appeal 2012-008358 Application 10/597,543 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and WILLIAM M. FINK, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 27, 28, and 33. Claim 34 is cancelled. Claims 2, 6, 8, 10, 13, 16–18, 20–26, 29–32, and 35–37 are indicated are being allowable (see Final Office Action 2 and Ans. 31). We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We REVERSE. 1 The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 22, 35, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Appeal 2012-008358 Application 10/597,543 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The present invention relates generally to a protocol for ultra wide- band (UWB) medium access control (MAC). See Spec. 1:4–5. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method of decentralized medium access control in a communications network including a plurality of devices, comprising: dividing time into a sequence of at least one superframe; and a first device of said plurality of devices transmitting in the superframe at a target beacon transmission time (TBTT) a beacon frame that includes a reservation for a planned transmission by a sender device during the superframe. Appellants appeal the following rejections: R1. Claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 27, 28, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Kondylis (US 6,665,311 B2, Dec. 16, 2003). We have reviewed Appellants’ arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection, and the Examiner’s response to the Appellants’ arguments. We concur with Appellants’ conclusion the Examiner erred in finding that Kondylis discloses a beacon frame that includes a reservation for a planned transmission, as set forth in claim 1. As identified by Appellants, “Kondylis appears to disclose that the signaling subframe includes reservation and the data subframe includes the beacon information. However, this is distinct from claim 1, which requires a Appeal 2012-008358 Application 10/597,543 3 beacon frame that includes a reservation because the signaling subframe of Kondylis is not a beacon frame” (App. Br. 9). Thus, we disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Kondylis’ transmission of a reservation request “is equivalent to [A]pplicants[’] ‘beacon frame’ because the reservation request transmitted by node X occurs in timeslots at the start of the frame (signaling subframe, see fig. 9) . . . . The signaling subframe as disclosed in Kondylis performs the exact same function as the [A]ppellants[’] ‘beacon frame’” (Ans. 10–11). Although Kondylis’ signaling portion includes reservations that are able to be performed and confirmed (see Abstract and see also col. 17, ll. 21–45), the Examiner has not shown that Kondylis’ signaling portion also includes a basic timing for the network. In other words, Appellants’ Specification indicates that “[b]eacon 105 provides the basic timing for the network and transmits information regarding the isochronous reservations” (Spec. 2:6–7). Stated differently, as defined by Appellants’ Specification, the claimed beacon provides both basic timing and reservation information. In contrast, the Examiner has not shown how Kondylis’ signaling portion also includes timing information. Instead, the Examiner merely states that “the reservation request transmitted by node X occurs in timeslots at the start of the frame” (see Ans. 10–11). Although Kondylis’ placement of the reservation is similar to that claimed (i.e., at the beginning of the frame)(see Appellants’ Fig. 1), the Examiner has not shown how Kondylis’ timeslots at the start of the frame relates to basic timing for the network, as provided by the beacons of the claimed invention. Instead, Kondylis’ merely discloses that “[l]ater, during the transmission of the data, the Appeal 2012-008358 Application 10/597,543 4 transmitting node . . . awaits reception of a receive beacon containing the identity of the transmitting node in the receive beacon minislot 316 of data slots 314 for which a reservation was made by the transmitting node” (col. 10, ll. 30–35). In other words, Kondylis merely discloses a receive beacon, separate from the reservation, that identifies the transmitting node. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 27, 28, and 33. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 3–5, 7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 19, 27, 28, and 33 is reversed. REVERSED gvw Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation