Ex Parte Merlin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 22, 2018

13622845 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 22, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/622,845 09/19/2012
15055 7590 03/26/2018
Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Simone Merlin
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.
113467 4990
EXAMINER
NOWLIN, ERIC
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/26/2018 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):
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
P AIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SIMONE MERLIN, YOUHAN KIM, and ALBERT
VANZELST
Appeal2017-010923
Application 13/622,845
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-32. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
Claims 1, 2, 6-12, 16-22, and 26-32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combination of Grandhi (US
2011/0116488 Al; published May 19, 2011) and Lee (Daewon Lee,
Submission for Draft P802. l lac_DO. l comment resolution, IEEE, March
2011 ). Final Act. 9-32.
Claims 3-5, 13-15, and 23-25 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. §
103 (a) as unpatentable over the combination of Grandhi, Lee, and Gong (US
2012/0113806 Al; published May 10, 2012). Final Act. 32-39.
Appeal2017-010923
Application 13/622,845
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to "switching operating bandwidth
and/or operating channel in a wireless communications network." Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed
limitation emphasized:
1. An apparatus for wireless communications, comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a frame indicating an announcement
of a switch to a particular bandwidth; and
a processing system configured to:
determine whether the particular bandwidth belongs to a first
or second set of operating bandwidths by:
detecting a presence of a Secondary Channel Offset
Element and a Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch Element, wherein the
presence of the Secondary Channel Offset Element and the Wide Bandwidth
Channel Switch Element in the frame indicates that the particular bandwidth
belongs to the first set of operating bandwidths; or
detecting an absence of the Secondary Channel Offset
Element and the Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch Element, wherein the
absence of the Secondary Channel Offset Element and the Wide Bandwidth
Channel Switch Element in the frame indicates that the particular bandwidth
belongs to the second set of operating bandwidths; and
switch to the first or second set of operating bandwidths based
on the determination.
2
Appeal2017-010923
Application 13/622,845
ANALYSIS
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1, 2, 6-12, 16-22, AND 26-32 OVER
GRANDHI AND LEE
Contentions
The Examiner finds Grandhi and Lee teach all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 10-13; see also Ans. 3-11. The Examiner finds Lee's disclosure
of a Channel Switch Announcement frame format including a Secondary
Channel Offset Element and a Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch Element
teaches the key disputed limitation. See Final Act. 11-12 (citing Lee pp. 4--
5). In particular, the Examiner finds "the act of detecting [a presence or an
absence] occurs when the receiver interprets the individual information
elements stored within the frame." Final Act. 11, 12.
Appellants present the following principal arguments:
1. The HT STA of Lee merely receiving and interpreting the Wide
Bandwidth Channel Switch element and the Secondary Channel Offset
element is not the same as the claimed determining whether a particular
bandwidth belongs to a set of operating bandwidths by detecting a presence
(or absence) of a Secondary Channel Offset Element and a Wide Bandwidth
Channel Switch Element, wherein the presence (or absence) of the
Secondary Channel Offset Element and the Wide Bandwidth Channel
Switch Element in the frame indicates that the particular bandwidth belongs
to the set of operating bandwidths.
App. Br. 10-11; see also Reply Br. 2--4.
11. "Lee in view of Grandhi fails to teach switching to a first or
second set of operating bandwidths based on a determination (detection) of a
3
Appeal2017-010923
Application 13/622,845
presence (or absence) of a Secondary Channel Offset Element and a Wide
Bandwidth Channel Switch Element." App. Br. 11-12.
Our Review
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence
produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010)
(precedential).
Contrary to Appellants' argument (i), we agree with the Examiner's
finding that Lee teaches the key disputed limitation.
Lee discloses a Channel Switch Announcement frame format
including a Secondary Channel Offset Element and a Wide Bandwidth
Channel Switch Element. See Final Act. 11-12; see also Leep. 4. Lee
discloses "The Secondary Channel Offset element is defined in 7 .3 .2.20a
(Secondary Channel Offset element). This element is present when
switching to a 40 MHz or wider channel. It may be present when switching
to a 20 MHz channel (in which case the secondary channel offset is set to
SCN)." Leep. 4. Lee discloses "The Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch
element is defined in section 7.3.2.20b (Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch
element). This information element is present when switching to channel
width wider than 40 MHz." Lee pp. 4--5.
Thus, Lee's disclosures teach "determine whether the particular
bandwidth belongs to a first" (channel width wider than 40 MHz) "or second
set" (a 20 MHz channel) "of operating bandwidths" as recited in claim 1. Id.
Further, Lee's disclosures teach "detecting a presence of a Secondary
Channel Offset Element and a Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch Element,
4
Appeal2017-010923
Application 13/622,845
wherein the presence of the Secondary Channel Offset Element and the
Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch Element in the frame indicates that the
particular bandwidth belongs to the first set of operating bandwidths" (the
presence of the Secondary Channel Offset Element and the Wide Bandwidth
Channel Switch Element indicate switching to a channel width wider than 40
MHz). Id.
Further, Lee's disclosures teach "detecting an absence of the
Secondary Channel Offset Element and the Wide Bandwidth Channel
Switch Element, wherein the absence of the Secondary Channel Offset
Element and the Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch Element in the frame
indicates that the particular bandwidth belongs to the second set of operating
bandwidths" (the absence of the Secondary Channel Offset Element and the
Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch Element indicate switching to a 20 MHz
channel). Id.
Regarding Appellants' argument (ii), this argument is unavailing
because Grandhi teaches the argued limitations when combined with Lee.
Grandhi discloses a Channel Switch Announcement frame including a
Secondary Channel Offset Element, and switching to an operating
bandwidth based on the announcement. See Final Action 10-11; see also
Grandhi i-fi-158-59, 61-62, Table 1. As discussed above, Lee teaches the
particulars of the claimed Channel Switch Announcement frame as well as
detecting a presence or absence of the Secondary Channel Offset Element
and the Wide Bandwidth Channel Switch Element. See Lee pp. 4--5. When
the teachings of Lee are combined with Grandhi, Grandhi "switch[ es] to the
first or second set of operating bandwidths based on the determination" as
recited in claim 1.
5
Appeal2017-010923
Application 13/622,845
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 6-12, 16-22, and 26-32, which
are not separately argued with particularity.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 3-5, 13-15, AND 23-25 OVER
GRANDHI, LEE, AND GONG
Appellants argue Gong does not cure the purported deficiencies of
Grandhi and Lee. See App. Br. 12-13; see also Reply Br. 4--5.
For reasons discussed above, we, therefore, sustain the Examiner's
rejection of claims 3-5, 13-15, and 23-25.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-32 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal maybe extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l).
AFFIRMED
6