Ex Parte Nagata

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 3, 2018

14000447 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 3, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/000,447 08/20/2013
51921 7590 10/05/2018
MARK D. SARALINO (PAN)
RENNER, OTTO, BOISSELLE & SKLAR, LLP
1621 EUCLID AVENUE
19THFLOOR
CLEVELAND, OH 44115
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masahiro Nagata
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.
ITAYP0103WOUS 3052
EXAMINER
TACDIRAN, ANDRE GEE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/05/2018 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):
ipdocket@rennerotto.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MASAHIRO NAGATA
Appeal2018-003219 1
Application 14/000,447
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the
decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1, 4, and 6-10. App. Br. 1.
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from examination, and claims 2, 3, 5, 21 and
22 are canceled. App. Br. 12-17. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 "The real party in interest in the present appeal is Panasonic Intellectual
Property Management Co., Ltd." App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-003219
Application 14/000,447
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant's claimed subject matter is directed to providing "a wireless
communication system in which, when a plurality of wireless slave units
attempt to transmit ... information signals of different priority levels to a
wireless master unit, transmission of an information signal of higher priority
level is prioritized with reliability." Spec. ,r 13.
Claim 1, the sole independent claim before us, is reproduced below
for reference ( emphasis added):
1. A wireless communication system comprising:
a wireless master unit; and
a plurality of wireless slave units which receive a beacon
signal periodically wirelessly transmitted from the wireless
master unit, and wirelessly transmit a plurality of kinds of
information signals to the wireless master unit, respectively, in
synchronization with time slots defined by the beacon signal,
wherein the plurality of kinds of information signals have
previously been assigned with priority levels, and each of the
plurality of wireless slave units is configured such that the higher
a priority level of an information signal to be transmitted from a
wireless slave unit is, the shorter a period of a carrier sense to be
performed before the transmission is set,
wherein the priority levels are set according to urgency
levels of transmission, and the plurality of wireless slave units
include:
an operation unit which transmits an operation
information signal when operated by a user;
an event sensing sensor which senses, when an
event occurs, the event, and transmits an event information
signal; and
at least one periodic measurement sensor which
periodically measures a physical amount of environmental
atmosphere, and transmits a physical amount information signal,
2
Appeal2018-003219
Application 14/000,447
a priority level of the operation information signal and a
priority level of the event information signal are set to be higher
than a priority level of the physical amount information signal
such that a carrier sense performed before transmission of the
operation information signal and a carrier sense performed
before transmission of the event information signal are each
shorter than a carrier sense performed before transmission of the
physical amount information signal,
the wireless master unit transmits various signals
including the beacon signal which have previously been assigned
with priority levels, in synchronization with the time slots, and
the higher a priority level of a signal from the various
signals to be transmitted by the wireless master unit is, the
shorter a period of a carrier sense to be peiformed before the
transmission is set. 2
References and Rejections
The following is the prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting
the claims on appeal:
Helgeson US 6,901,066 Bl May 31, 2005
Smith US 2006/0089138 Al Apr. 27, 2006
Brennan US 2009/0102681 Al Apr. 23, 2009
Sherman US 2009/0201860 Al Aug. 13, 2009
Kim US 2011/0026419 Al Feb. 3, 2011
Wu, Haitao et al., IEEE 802.1 le Enhanced Distributed Channel Access
(EDCA) Throughput Analysis, 2006, (hereinafter, "Wu").
Bennett, Heavy Duty Truck Systems, p. 336, 5th Edition, 2010.
2 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner may wish to consider
whether the claim is indefinite for reciting a hybrid of system and method
limitations. See IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377,
1384 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (when a claim recites both a system and a method for
using that system, it may be unclear whether infringement occurs).
3
Appeal2018-003219
Application 14/000,447
Claims 1, 4, 7, and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith, Wu, Sherman, Bennett, and Helgeson. Final Act. 2
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith, Wu, Sherman, Bennett, Helgeson, and Kim. Final
Act. 11.
Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Smith, Wu, Sherman, Bennett, Helgeson, and Brennan.
Final Act. 12.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellant's
arguments. We have considered in this Decision only those arguments
Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments Appellant
could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be
waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv). We adopt the Examiner's findings
and conclusions as our own, to the extent consistent with our analysis herein.
A. Dependent Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from independent claim 1, and further recites:
the at least one periodic measurement sensor includes two
or more periodic measurement sensors,
at least two or more wireless slave units among the
plurality of wireless slave units correspond to the two or more
periodic measurement sensors, and the two or more periodic
measurement sensors transmit the physical amount information
signals by using different time slots.
4
Appeal2018-003219
Application 14/000,447
Appellant argues the Examiner errs in finding Helgeson teaches the
limitations of claim 4, because "the present application defines the physical
amount information signals (see Paras. 218 and 58) and ... Helgeson does
not disclose such signals as defined in the Specification." App. Br. 6.
Particularly, Appellant contends the Examiner's construction of the recited
"the physical amount information signals" has been disclaimed:
[T]o the extent that these statements in the Specification are
interpreted as other than the applicant acting as his own
lexicographer, the statements may serve as disclaimer in the
Specification of other interpretations for the claim terms. To the
extent that these statements in the Specification are, for some
reason, interpreted as not disclaiming other interpretations for the
claim terms, applicant's statements in the prosecution history of
this application including the Response to the Final Office
Action, the Appeal Brief, and this Reply Brief should surely
serve to effect such disclaimer.
[T]he temperature information signal P 1 and the humidity
information signal P2 are the physical information signals and
the temperature information signal P 1 and the humidity
information signal P2 are information signals automatically
periodically measured by the temperature sensor 6 and the
humidity sensor 7, respectively.
Reply Br. 3--4 (citing Spec. ,r 58).
We are not persuaded the Examiner's rejection is in error. Although
the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the
specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d
1181, 1184 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Here, the Specification provides examples, but
no narrowing definitions, of the recited "physical amount information
signals." See, e.g., Spec. ,r,r 30-31. Thus, consistent with the Specification,
we agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill would reasonably
understand the physical amount information signals to be used for
5
Appeal2018-003219
Application 14/000,447
communicating physical measurements without being limited to humidity
and temperature amount signals only. See Ans. 3 ("For example, a broadest
reasonable interpretation of 'physical amount information signals' could
correspond to two humidity-based signals.").
Further, we do not find Appellant's contentions regarding disclaimer
to be persuasive. See Tempo Lighting, Inc. v. Tivoli, LLC, 742 F.3d 973, 978
(Fed. Cir. 2014) ("the PTO is under no obligation to accept a claim
construction proffered as a prosecution history disclaimer, which generally
only binds the patent owner."). We note claim 4 is currently being
prosecuted: Appellant can-but has chosen not to----amend claim 4 to recite
the specific humidity and temperature signals. See In re Prater, 415 F .2d
1393, 1404---05 (CCPA 1969) (During prosecution, "the applicant may then
amend [the] claims, the thought being to reduce the possibility that, after the
patent is granted, the claims may be interpreted as giving broader coverage
than is justified."). 3
Helgeson, as cited by the Examiner, teaches "sensors can measure
variables such as vibration, noise, temperature, movement, and pressure"
and "include temperature sensors, water detectors, humidity sensors, light
sensors." Helgeson 5:27-53. Based on the record before us, we are not
persuaded the Examiner errs in finding Helgeson, in combination with the
other cited references, teaches or suggests the disputed limitations of claim
4. See Final Act. 9.
3 Separately, we note the statement Appellant proffers to serve as the
disclaimer does not define the recited term "physical amount information
signals." See Reply Br. 4. That is, Appellant has defined the "temperature
information signal Pl" and the "humidity information signal P2," rather than
the recited term itself. Id.
6
Appeal2018-003219
Application 14/000,447
B. Independent Claim 1
Appellant argues the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1 is in
error, because "Sherman says nothing about 'the higher a priority level of a
signal from the various signals to be transmitted by the wireless master unit
is, the shorter a period of a carrier sense to be performed before the
transmission is set,"' as claimed. App. Br. 9. Appellant contends that, in
contrast to the claim requirements, Sherman teaches "the higher a priority
level of a signal already transmitted is, the shorter a period of a carrier sense
to be performed after the transmission." Id.
We are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the cited references
teach or suggest the signal priority varies the period of carrier sense, as
claimed. See Final Act. 6; Ans. 3. The Examiner correctly finds Sherman
teaches prioritization "in accordance with 802.11/CSMA" (Final Act. 6), as
Sherman discloses a signal frame will contain a period of contention slots
"similar to slots in the 'Slotted Aloha' protocol well known in the art except
that the slots 1400 have internal structure that allows them to be used for
Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA) which is also well known in the art
and used, for example, in the 802.11 protocol" (Sherman ,r 104, emphasis
added). See Sherman ,r 62---63 ( describing contention windows for beacon
timing); see also Spec. ,r,r 33,106,212.
We also agree with the Examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art
would have understood Sherman's use of CSMA teaches that "during a time
slot scheduled for a particular node, the particular node is configured to have
higher channel access priority, or shorter deferral period, than other member
stations so that it has a higher probability of accessing the channel
successfully in order to communicate in the channel without collision."
7
Appeal2018-003219
Application 14/000,447
Advisory Act. 2. Sherman's contention slots can contain a "priority
opportunity (PO) ... that allows priority messages to be given preferential
access to a contention slot when CSMA is practiced." Sherman ,r 105; see
also Sherman Fig. 14. Thus, as Sherman's prioritized signal will occur
earlier in the contention window (i.e., in the beginning of a given contention
slot among the group of contention slots), Sherman teaches or suggests "the
shorter a period of a carrier sense to be performed before the transmission is
sent" as recited by claim 1. See Final Act. 6; see also Spec. ,r,r 63, 71;
Sherman ,r 105.
Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner errs in finding the
limitations of claim 1 to be taught or suggested by the cited references.
CONCLUSION
We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 4. Appellant
advances no further argument on the remaining claims. See App. Br. 5-9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of those claims for the
same reasons discussed above.
DECISION
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 4, and 6-10 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
8