Ex Parte Miu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 25, 2013

10769090 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 25, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte ALLEN MIU, JOHN APOSTOLOPOULOS, WAI-TIAN TAN,
and MITCHELL TROTT
____________

Appeal 2010-010732
Application 10/769,090
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and
CARLA M. KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judges.

KRIVAK, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1, 3-14, 16-28, 30-36, and 38-40. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Appeal 2010-010732
Application 10/769,090

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to a method and system that
enables the transmission of data from a sender to a receiver via an identified
plurality of access points using a predetermined multi-access point
transmission scheme (Spec. 11:4-10).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative.
1. A method for delivering data, in a wireless system
comprising a distributed infrastructure of access points, said
method comprising:

identifying a plurality of access points to be used
cooperatively in combination with each other for the
transmission of said data to a receiver, wherein said cooperative
usage of said plurality of access points is maintained for at least
some portion of a data transmission period;

enabling the transmission of said data to said receiver via
said plurality of access points, wherein said data is transmitted
in a pattern that uses at least two access points during
at least some portion of said data transmission period, wherein
data packets of said data comprise timestamps and wherein said
pattern is selected from a group of predetermined transmission
patterns; and

determining, during the transmission, performance of at
least one of said access points being used for the transmission
to enable transmitting at least a portion of said data through a
different access point while the transmission is in progress,
wherein said performance is based at least on examination of
said timestamps.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 6, 7, 9-12, 16-18, 20, 25, 26, 29,
30, 32-34, 38, and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of
Appeal 2010-010732
Application 10/769,090

3
Rimhagen (US 6,594,245 B1, issued July 15, 2003), Apostolopoulos (US
Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0009576 Al, published January 9, 2003), and
Norstrom (US Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0078045 A1, published April 24,
2003).
The Examiner rejected claims 4, 5, 8, 13, 14, 19, 21-24, 27, 28, 31,
35, 36, and 39 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based upon the teachings of
Rimhagen, Apostolopoulos, Norstrom, and Nakamichi (US Patent App. Pub.
No. 2002/0085498 A1, published July 4, 2002).

ANALYSIS
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Rimhagen, alone or
in combination with Apostolopoulos or Norstrom, teaches or suggests data
transmitted in a pattern, the pattern selected from a group of predetermined
transmission patterns (App. Br. 16).
The Examiner finds Rimhagen “teaches that the network may assign
multiple communication stations as necessary to service the communication
that is requested by the remote communication station. This assignment is
based on thresholds of available bandwidth and/or acceptable signal quality
(column 5 lines 20-28)” (Ans. 25). The Examiner asserts “the thresholds are
predetermined and the pattern is the number of communication stations that
are transmitting data to the remote communication station” (Ans. 26).
Appellants’ claim language requires “said pattern is selected from a
group of predetermined transmission patterns” (claim 1). As Appellants
contend, and we agree, the number of communication stations is a variable
in Rimhagen, and thus, is not predetermined (App. Br. 17; Reply Br. 3).
Additionally, we agree the assignment of communication stations (CSs) in
Appeal 2010-010732
Application 10/769,090

4
Rimhagen is based on their availability and the variability of the network
bandwidth and link signal quality. That is, the assignment of CSs is based on
the particular conditions of a network at a given moment in time and
whether the CS is available, and not based on a predetermined pattern as
claimed (Reply Br. 3). Neither Apostolopoulos nor Norstrom cures the
deficiency of Rimhagen.
For the above reasons, we find the weight of the evidence does not
support the Examiner’s underlying factual findings and ultimate legal
conclusion of obviousness. Thus, we agree with Appellants the Examiner
has not established claims 1, 3-14, 16-28, 30-36, and 38-40 are obvious over
the collective teachings of the cited references.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3-14, 16-28, 30-36, and
38-40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.

REVERSED

llw/peb