Ex Parte Oksman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 17, 2018

13401731 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 17, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/401,731 02/21/2012
18052 7590 12/19/2018
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vladimir Oksman
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.
KRAUP228US 9751
EXAMINER
BUTT, W ALLI Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/19/2018 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):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLADIMIR OKSMAN and JOON-BAE KIM
Appeal2017-009728
Application 13/401,731 1
Technology Center 2400
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, HUNG H. BUI, and JON M. JURGOV AN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final
Rejection of claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-15, 17, and 18, which are all the claims
pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm. 2
1 Appellants identify Lantiq Deutschland GMBH as the real party in
interest. (App. Br. 1.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification ("Spec.") filed February 21, 2012,
the Final Office Action ("Final Act.") mailed July 5, 2016, the Appeal Brief
("App. Br.") filed January 6, 2017, the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed
May 8, 2017, and the Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed July 7, 2017.
Appeal2017-009728
Application 13/401,731
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to a method and apparatus for
"communication between networked nodes operating on a communication
network medium" using a "data packet ... [that] enables a receiving node,
which is operating according to [a] second protocol type, to receive the data
packet from a [controller or master] node operating according to [a] first
protocol type." (Spec. ,r 10.) The data packet includes a first header
generated based on the first protocol type, and a second header and a
payload generated based on the second protocol type. (Spec. ,r 10.)
Claims 1, 9, and 13 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced below, is
illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A system, comprising:
a communication network medium; and
at least one node coupled to the medium, the node
arranged to communicate, at least in part via the medium, a
frame that includes a preamble to enable a receiver to
synchronize a clock, a header generated based on a first
protocol type and a payload generated based on a second
protocol type,
wherein the frame includes another header generated
based on the second protocol type,
wherein the frame includes one or more preamble
symbols offset from the preamble to enable the receiver to
synchronize the clock and between the header generated based
on the first protocol type and the another header generated
based on the second protocol type, wherein the one or more
preamble symbols indicate the beginning of a portion of the
frame associated with the second protocol type and enable the
receiver to capture a timing reference.
(App. Br. 13-16 (Claims App'x).)
2
Appeal2017-009728
Application 13/401,731
REJECTION & REFERENCES
Claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-15, 17, and 18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being unpatentable over McFarland et al. (US
2012/0093151 Al, published Apr. 19, 2012, "McFarland") and Dabak et al.
(US 2012/0093198 Al, published Apr. 19, 2012, "Dabak"). (Final Act. 3-
25.)
ANALYSIS
With respect to independent claim 1, Appellants contend the
Examiner's combination of McFarland and Dabak does not teach or suggest:
"a frame that includes one or more preamble symbols offset
from the preamble to enable a receiver to synchronize a clock
and between the header generated based on the first protocol
type and the another header generated based on the second
protocol type," as claimed.
(App. Br. 9.)
Particularly, Appellants argue McFarland and Dabak are both "silent
on preamble symbols between different headers corresponding to different
protocols types in a frame"; instead, "Dabak is explicit ... that the symbols
need to be within a header portion, rather than being between two headers of
different protocols." (Reply Br. 9; App. Br. 9-10.) Appellants further argue
"Dabak teaches away from ... [a] frame or packet having more than one
header of different protocol types." (Reply Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).)
Appellants also assert one of ordinary skill in the art would not add Dabak' s
preamble symbols to McFarland's frame at a position offset from the
preamble and between two headers (as recited in claim 1). (Reply Br. 4--5.)
Appellants contend such modification is contrary to "the explicit teaching of
3
Appeal2017-009728
Application 13/401,731
Dabak ... that preamble symbols are only 'in' or 'within' one kind of
header." (Reply Br. 4--5.) As such, Appellants argue the Examiner's
asserted modification "would ... make frame boundary detection in the
presence of impulsive noise inoperable according to Dabak" and Dabak
"teaches away from a frame with preamble symbols offset from the
preamble ... and between a header (based on a first protocol type) and
another header (based on a second protocol type)." (Reply Br. 6, 8
(emphasis omitted); App. Br. 8.) We do not agree.
We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings as our own.
Particularly, we agree with the Examiner that Dabak teaches one or more
preamble symbols indicate the beginning of a portion of a frame associated
with a protocol type and are followed by a header generated based on that
protocol type, as required by claim 1. (Final Act. 7-8 (citing Dabak ,r,r 76-
77, 79-80, 100-101, Fig. 14); see App. Br. 13 (claim 1 recites a "frame
includes one or more preamble symbols" and a "header generated based on
the second protocol type," and "the one or more preamble symbols indicate
the beginning of a portion of the frame associated with the second protocol
type and enable the receiver to capture a timing reference").) Contrary to
Appellants' argument that "[Dabak's] preamble symbols are only 'in' or
'within' one kind of header" (see Reply Br. 5), Dabak teaches preamble
symbols S 1 and S2 of a preamble (701) may precede a header (702). (See
Dabak ,r,r 59, 76-77, Figs. 7, 14, and 15; Ans. 5.) The embodiments in
Dabak's Figures 7 and 14 show preamble symbols immediately precede a
header and "enable lower peak-to-average power ratio (PAPR) in time
domain, thus allowing a higher boosting of preamble 701." (See Dabak
,r,r 59, 79-80, Figs. 7 and 14.) This boosted preamble functions as "a
4
Appeal2017-009728
Application 13/401,731
synchronization preamble" to "differentiate between the different [power
line communications (PLC)] domains" and "allow a unique identification for
each of the domain[s] based upon [the] synchronization preamble while
ensuring low P APR in order to permit boosting." (See Dabak ,r,r 79-81;
Ans. 5-6, 8-9.)
Thus, Dabak discloses preamble symbols precede a header of a (PLC)
protocol type, and indicate the beginning of a portion of the frame associated
with that protocol type, to enable a (PLC) receiver to capture a timing
reference for frame synchronization purposes, as required by claim 1. (Final
Act. 7-8; Ans. 8-9; see Dabak ,r,r 4, 58-59, 78-81, Fig. 23.)
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that "Dabak
teaches away from any one particular frame or packet having more than one
header of different protocol types." (See Reply Br. 10 (emphasis omitted).)
Although Dabak does not explicitly disclose headers of different protocol
types in one frame, Dabak does not criticize, discredit, or discourage
building a frame with multiple headers. Dabak's failure to disclose a frame
with headers of multiple protocol types is not a criticism against such a
frame. Mere description of an implementation in the prior art that differs
from Appellants' claimed invention, without more, does not show the prior
art is "teaching away" from the claimed invention. See In re Fulton, 391
F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellants' further argument that Dabak "teaches away from a frame
with preamble symbols offset from the preamble ... and between a header
(based on a first protocol type) and another header (based on a second
protocol type)" is also unpersuasive. (See Reply Br. 6.) Appellants' support
for this contention relies upon Appellants' previous argument that Dabak' s
5
Appeal2017-009728
Application 13/401,731
preamble symbols are only "interspersed with the frame header ...
within the header symbols of a frame header itself." (Reply Br. 6.) As
discussed supra, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Dabak's
preamble symbols are only within a header, and we are also not persuaded
that Dabak teaches away from a frame with headers of different protocols.
Additionally, as the Examiner finds, McFarland explicitly teaches a
frame with headers of multiple protocol types, as required by claim 1. (Ans.
3, 8 (citing McFarland Figs. 3B and 5A); Final Act. 5.) For example, the
frame in McFarland's Figure 5A includes a preamble (302) "to enable a
receiver to synchronize a clock," a header (512) "generated based on a first
protocol type," a second header (354) "generated based on the second
protocol type," and a payload (356) "generated based on [the] second
protocol type" as recited in claim 1. (See McFarland ,r,r 36, 41, Fig. 5A.)
The Examiner has also articulated sufficient reasoning for adding
Dabak's preamble symbols to McFarland's frame at a position between
McFarland's two headers (512, 354), as required by claim 1. (Ans. 5---6, 8-
9.) As the Examiner explains, the skilled artisan would add Dabak's
synchronization preamble ( containing preamble symbols) immediately
before McFarland's header (354, generated based on the second protocol
type) "to enhance the communication between [McFarland's] PLC devices
communicating using two or more different standards ... by differentiating
between the different protocols by using [Dabak' s] synchronization
preamble." (Ans. 6, 9 ( citing Dabak ,r,r 79, 95).) The preamble symbols as
taught by Dabak would enable a receiver of a decoding device to
synchronize with the portion of McFarland's frame associated with the
second protocol. (Ans. 8-9.) We agree with the Examiner that the skilled
6
Appeal2017-009728
Application 13/401,731
artisan would have easily foreseen the advantage of announcing
McFarland's second protocol header (354) by using synchronization
preamble symbols that allow "boosting of more than 4 dB with respect to the
data" and "[the] unique identification" of the second protocol. (See Dabak
,r,r 59, 79.) "The combination of familiar elements according to known
methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable
results" from "the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions." KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-17
(2007). Adding synchronization preamble symbols immediately before
McFarland's header 354 (as in Dabak's Figures 7 and 14 where preamble
symbols S1 and S2 immediately precede the header) would locate the
preamble symbols between header 354 and McFarland's other header 512
(generated based on a first protocol type) at a position offset from
McFarland's first protocol preamble 302. (Ans. 8-9; see McFarland Fig.
5A.)
Thus, the Examiner's combination of McFarland and Dabak teaches
and suggests "one or more preamble symbols offset from the preamble" and
"between the header generated based on the first protocol type and the
another header generated based on the second protocol type" as recited in
claim 1.
We are also not persuaded by Appellants' argument that the
Examiner's proposed modification of McFarland based on Dabak would
render Dabak' s "frame boundary detection in the presence of impulsive
noise inoperable." (Reply Br. 8 (emphasis omitted).) Appellants assert the
Examiner's modification would prevent Dabak's receiver from hypothesis
testing "done only to locate the first SYNCN symbol in the header."
7
Appeal2017-009728
Application 13/401,731
(Reply Br. 8 (citing Dabak ,r 88, Fig. 7).) The Examiner finds that
McFarland's frame structure also enables boundary detection by testing
frame symbols. (Ans. 7 (citing McFarland ,r 36); see also McFarland ,r,r 37,
41 ( describing packet length field indications for estimating frames'
boundaries).) We concur with the Examiner. We further note, Dabak's
intended purpose is not restricted to the testing of header symbols to
overcome impulsive noise, as Appellants assert (see Reply Br. 8). Rather,
Dabak's goal is to construct preamble structures that enable detection,
identification, and decoding of frames communicated by co-existing and co-
located PLC protocols. (See Dabak ,r,r 5, 79, and 95, Abstract.) This goal is
achieved not only by Dabak's embodiments in Figs. 2 lA-2 lB (where
preamble symbols are inserted in a header), but also by Dabak's
embodiments in Figs. 7 and 14 (lacking preamble symbols in header). Thus,
we do not consider that modifying McFarland based on Dabak as proposed
by the Examiner would render Dabak inoperable.
Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in
the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of independent claim 1 and the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 9 and 13 on the same basis as claim 1 (App. Br. 11;
Reply Br. 11 ), for the reasons stated above.
No separate arguments are presented for dependent claims 2--4, 6-8,
10, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 18. (App. Br. 9, 11.) Accordingly, for the reasons
stated with respect to independent claims 1, 9, and 13, we sustain the
rejection of these dependent claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 4I.37(c)(l)(iv).
8
Appeal2017-009728
Application 13/401,731
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 6-10, 12-15,
17, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
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
9