Ex Parte Lee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 25, 2018

13099079 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 25, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/099,079 05/02/2011
23446 7590 07/27/2018
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ronald Lee
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.
E070005USC 1 1070
EXAMINER
RIV AS, SALVADORE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2018 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):
mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte RONALD LEE, KEN CHU,
ROBERT LAWRENCE HARA, JR., GLENN DELUCIO,
and ZONG LIANG WU
Appeal2016-007090 1
Application 13/099,079
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., JEFFREYS. SMITH, and
ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to the Appellants, the real party in interest is Entropic
Communications, LLC. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § I34(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-3, 5-14, and 16-18, which are all the claims pending
in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method of operating a first network controller of a
first network comprising:
receiving a request to admit a new preferred network
controller, the request comprising a signal transmitted by the new
preferred network controller designating itself as the new
preferred network controller during an admission process to the
first network based upon at least one factor relating to a
preferable characteristic of the node; and
handing off a network controller functionality to the new
preferred network controller.
Loebbert
Borst
Stone
Mighani
Murphy
Frei
Prior Art
US 2005/0086273 Al
US 2006/0239224 Al
US 2006/0280197 Al
US 2008/0192713 Al
US 2007/0149122 Al
US 2005/0036505 Al
Examiner's Rejections
Apr. 21, 2005
Oct. 26, 2006
Dec. 14,2006
Aug. 14, 2008
June 28, 2007
Feb. 17,2005
Claims 1, 3, and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
unpatentable over Loebbert and Murphy.
Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as unpatentable over
Loebbert, Murphy, and Stone.
2
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
Claims 6-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Loebbert, Murphy, and Mighani.
Claims 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mighani and Loebbert.
Claims 14, 16, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Mighani, Loebbert, and Frei.
Claim 17 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Mighani, Loebbert, Frei, and Stone.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Office Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the
Examiner's Answer. We highlight the following for emphasis.
Section 103 rejections of claims 1, 2, 6, and 10
Appellants contend Loebbert does not teach "receiving a request to
admit a new preferred network controller" and "designating itself as the new
preferred network controller during an admission process" as recited in
claim 1. App. Br. 7-8. According to Appellants, Loebbert cannot teach
receiving a request to admit a new preferred network controller, because
"the slave [node] in Loebbert is clearly already part of the piconet, and as
such it is not requesting admission to the network." App. Br. 7-9 (citing
Loebbert ,r,r 132, 153, 155-65, and 175).
Appellants cite paragraphs 153 and 155---65 of Loebbert to support
their contention that Loebbert does not admit new nodes (App. Br. 8-9), but
3
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
Appellants do not cite paragraph 154 of Loebbert, which teaches that
"[ w ]hen a new slave may join the piconet, the same procedure [ of Figure 5]
is executed, and the master acquires performance parameters from the new
device added to the piconet." Appellants' contention that Loebbert does not
teach admitting a new node to the piconet is inconsistent with paragraph 154
of Loebbert.
We further highlight that Loebbert teaches a process for incorporating
a new slave node into the piconet. Loebbert ,r 175. During this process, a
master receives the new node's performance parameters, uses the
performance parameters to calculate a master aptitude for the new node, and
compares the new node's master aptitude with those of other nodes to select
a new master. Id. Appellants contend that because the master node taught
in Loebbert calculates the new node's master aptitude before selecting the
new master, Loebbert's teaching of calculating the new node's master
aptitude "occurs only after the ... [ new node] has already been admitted to
the piconet." App. Br. 9. According to Appellants, this means that Loebbert
cannot be reasonably interpreted to teach, "receiving a request to admit a
new preferred network controller" as claimed. Id.
We disagree with Appellants, because the scope of the claimed
"receiving a request to admit a new preferred network controller," read in
light of Appellants' Specification, encompasses the teachings of Loebbert.
Appellants find support for the disputed limitations, inter alia, in paragraphs
36 and 39 of Appellants' Specification. App. Br. 3. Appellants'
Specification discloses:
each node includes capabilities bits that are transmitted to the NC
[ network controller or master] node when joining a network. In
4
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
this embodiment, the capabilities bits of the preferred NC node
indicates that it is a preferred NC node.
[I] f the current NC node is a preferred NC node and
one or more other preferred NC nodes joins the network, the
current NC [node] must hand-off to a preferred NC with the
highest MoCA [Media over Coax Alliance] revision if it is higher
than its own Mo CA revision. If there are more than one preferred
NC nodes with the highest MoCA revision, the current NC node
must hand-off [to] the one with the best GCD [greatest common
denominator] bit loading at the time.
Spec. ,r,r 3 6, 3 9. The scope of "receiving a request to admit a new preferred
network controller" as claimed, when read in light of the Specification's
disclosure of receiving a new node's capabilities bits and comparing the bits
with those of other nodes, encompasses receiving a new node's performance
parameters, using the parameters to calculate a master aptitude for the new
node, and comparing the new node's master aptitude with the master
aptitude of other nodes as taught by Loebbert.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2, 6, and 10
which fall with claim 1. See App. Br. 17-19.
Section 103 rejection of claim 3
Claim 3 recites "the first network controller is a first preferred
network controller, and the handing off occurs if the new preferred network
controller has a better greatest common denominator."2 Appellants contend
2 The meaning of "a better greatest common denominator" is unclear. For
example, claim 3, unlike the Specification, does not associate the GCD with
a bitloading, a bitrate, or anything else. See Spec. 39. Rather, the GCD is
5
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
that Loebbert does not teach that the current master evaluates its own
performance parameters. However, claim 3 does not recite that the current
master evaluates its own performance parameters. Appellants' contention is
not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
We further highlight that Loebbert teaches selecting a slave node with
the highest master aptitude as the backup-master. Loebbert ,r 165. The term
"a better greatest common denominator" is not defined in the claim. The
broadest reasonable interpretation of "a better greatest common
denominator" as claimed encompasses the highest master aptitude taught by
Loebbert.
We sustain the rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claim 5
Claim 5 recites, "the designating of the new preferred network
controller occurs after selecting a node to be the new preferred network
controller, and before admission to the first network." 3 Appellants contend
that the combination of Loebbert and Murphy does not teach selection of a
claimed as an abstraction corresponding to a number. Further, the adjective
"better" is a comparative term, but the claim does not recite a comparison.
In other words, the claim raises, without answering, the questions (a) the
greatest common denominator of what, and (b) better than what? In the
event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether this term
satisfies the requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
3 Appellants' Specification as originally filed does not appear to provide a
written description of "the designating of the new preferred network
controller occurs after selecting a node to be the new preferred network
controller, and before admission to the first network." In the event of further
prosecution, the Examiner should address whether claim 5 satisfies the
written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
6
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
node for function as a master before the node is admitted, because,
according to Appellants, Loebbert clearly and unequivocally teaches that all
the operations described thereby takes place only when the devices are
already part of the piconet. App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 8.
Appellants' contentions are inconsistent with paragraphs 154 and 17 5
of Loebbert as discussed in our analysis of claim 1. We sustain the rejection
of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claims 7 and 8
Claim 7 recites, "determining an impairment present on a channel
between each of the existing nodes." Claim 8 recites, "adapting a
modulation utilized between each of the existing nodes based on the
impairment of the channel." According to Appellants, paragraphs 54, 70,
and 72 of Mighani teach detecting and repairing a failed node, but do not
teach determining an impairment on a channel as recited in claim 7, nor
teach adapting a modulation based on the impairment recited in claim 8.
App. Br. 19-21.
The Examiner finds paragraph 49 of Mighani teaches adjusting radio
signal power to a level sufficient for a device to communicate with other
nodes. Ans. 13-14. We highlight that paragraph 48 ofMighani teaches
controlling radio signal power output of each node in a mesh so that nodes in
a given mesh are able to communicate, but interference is not created.
Appellants have not persuasively distinguished "determining an
impairment present on a channel between each of the existing nodes" as
recited in claim 7 from determining radio signal power output levels that
create interference as taught by Mighani. Also, Appellants have not
7
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
persuasively distinguished "adapting a modulation utilized between each of
the existing nodes based on the impairment of the channel" as recited in
claim 8 from adjusting the radio signal power output of each node to a level
sufficient for each node to communicate without creating interference as
taught by Mighani.
We sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claim 9
Claim 9 recites, "calculating a greatest common denominator
modulation profile for the first network based on the estimated channel
characteristics." Appellants contend that Mighani does not teach a greatest
common denominator modulation profile for the network based on the
estimated channel characteristics. App. Br. 22.
We find that Mighani' s paragraphs 48 and 49 teach calculating power
levels of nodes that cause interference, and adjusting the signal power of
each node to a level sufficient to allow communication, but avoid
interference as discussed in our analysis of claims 7 and 8. Appellants have
not persuasively distinguished the signal power adjustments for each node in
the network from the "modulation profile for the first network" as claimed.
Further, although the claim recites the adjective "greatest common
denominator" before the term "modulation profile," the "greatest common
denominator" as claimed does not serve to distinguish the claimed
modulation profile from the prior art, for the reasons discussed in our
analysis of claim 3.
We sustain the rejection of claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
8
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
Section 103 rejection of claim 11
Claim 11 recites "computer code for signaling a designation indicative
of [a] preferred network controller status to a network controller node of a
network during an attempt to gain admission to the network." Appellants
contend that the slave node taught by Loebbert cannot "indicate its status as
the BM [backup-master] during admission." App. Br. 13.
Paragraph 132 of Loebbert teaches that the performance parameters
transmitted from a slave to a master indicate whether the slave can be
selected as a master. Paragraph 133 of Loebbert teaches that one of the
performance parameters is "information showing whether the slave can be
set as [a] master." Paragraphs 154 and 17 5 of Loebbert teach that the slave
node transmits the performance parameters when joining the network. The
scope of "signaling a designation indicative of [a] preferred network
controller status," encompasses a slave node transmitting information
showing that the slave can be set as a master when joining the network as
taught by Loebbert.
We sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claim 12
Claim 12 recites "transmitting capabilities bits indicative of the
preferred network controller status to the network controller node." We find
that the scope of this limitation encompasses a slave node transmitting
performance parameters such as information showing whether the slave can
be set as a master as taught by Loebbert, for the reasons given in our
analysis of claim 11.
We sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
9
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
Section 103 rejection of claim 13
Claim 13 recites, "the preferred network controller status is assigned
to a node, before admission to the network." Appellants contend that
Mighani does not teach assigning a preferred network controller status to a
node before admission to the network. App. Br. 24. However, the
performance parameters of Loebbert teach indicating whether a new node
can be set as a master as discussed in our analysis of claims 11 and 12.
Appellants have not persuasively distinguished assigning preferred network
controller status before admission as claimed from assigning a performance
parameter to a node indicating that the node can be set as a master before the
node joins a network as taught by Loebbert.
We sustain the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejections of claims 14 and 17
Appellants contend the combination of Loebbert, Mighani, and Frei
does not teach "the preferred network controller node being preselected to be
the preferred network controller node before its admission"4 as recited in
claim 14. App. Br. 12-14; Reply Br. 5-6. According to Appellants,
paragraph 30 of Frei teaches that the master and slave nodes are
predetermined, but does not teach preselecting a device to be the preferred
4 Appellants' Specification as originally filed does not appear to provide a
written description of the "node being preselected to be the preferred
network controller node before its admission." In the event of further
prosecution, the Examiner should address whether claim 14 and
corresponding dependent claims 16--18 satisfy the written description
requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
10
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
network controller node before its admission as recited in claim 14. App.
Br. 13-14.
Paragraph 30 of Frei teaches the "master nodes and their slave nodes
have been predetermined." Appellants' contention that paragraph 30 of Frei
does not teach preselecting a node to be the master node before its admission
to the network is based on the premise that paragraph 30 of Frei does not
teach admitting nodes to a network. However, paragraph 20 of Frei teaches
a mesh network that implements protocols "to add ... network nodes."
Also, paragraphs 54 and 55 of Mighani teach admitting nodes to a network.
Further, Loebbert teaches admitting nodes to a network as discussed in our
analysis of claim 1.
Each reference cited by the Examiner must be read, not in isolation,
but for what it fairly teaches in combination with the prior art as a whole.
See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The
relevant inquiry is whether the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to those of ordinary skill in the art in light of the combined
teachings of those references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,425 (CCPA
1981 ). Appellants' contention that paragraph 30 of Frei does not teach
admitting a preselected master node to a network does not persuasively
address the combined teachings of Loebbert, Mighani, and Frei, which teach
(a) a predetermined master node and (b) a node can be admitted to a
network.
We sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellants do not present arguments for separate patentability of claim 1 7,
which falls with claim 14.
11
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
Section 103 rejection of claim 16
Claim 16 recites the network controller node "is further configured to
read capabilities bits of the preferred network controller node upon the
preferred network controller node joining the network." We find that the
scope of this limitation encompasses Loebbert' s teachings of a master node
reading the performance parameters of a slave node that joins the network
for the reasons discussed in our analysis of claims 11-13.
We sustain the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Section 103 rejection of claim 18
Claim 18 recites, "the network controller node is configured to hand
off network controller functionality upon further determining that the
preferred network controller node has a best greatest common denominator
bitrate." The Examiner finds that paragraph 54 of Mighani teaches this
limitation. Final Act. 22; Ans. 19-20.
Appellants contend paragraph 54 of Mighani teaches interactions
related to joining a self-configuring network, but does not teach determining
a greatest common denominator bitrate, and handing off network controller
functionality in response to the determining step. App. Br. 27. We agree
with Appellants. The Examiner has not persuasively explained how
paragraph 54 of Mighani teaches this limitation, nor has the Examiner found
that any other part of the cited prior art teaches this limitation.
We do not sustain5 the rejection of claim 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
5 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
claim 18 satisfies the written description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, in light of claim 18' s dependence from claim 14. The
12
Appeal2016-007090
Application 13/099,079
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-3, 5-14, 16, and 17 are affirmed.
The rejection of claim 18 is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 4I.50(f).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
Examiner should further consider whether claim 18 satisfies the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, given that claim 18
recites handing off network controller functionality upon determining that
the preferred network controller has a best greatest common denominator
bitrate, but independent claim 14 recites the "node being preselected to be
the preferred network controller node before its admission." The steps of
preselecting the node as the network controller and handing off controller
functionality to the node only after determining the node has a best GCD
bitrate appear mutually exclusive.
13