10465817 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

Ex Parte Proctor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 19, 2013

10465817 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JAMES ARTHUR PROCTOR, JR. and KENNETH MARVIN GAINEY ____________________ Appeal 2011-005447 Application 10/465,817 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-005447 Application 10/465,817 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1 and 3-26. Claim 2 has been canceled. App. Br. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION Appellants’ claimed invention is generally related to wireless communications, and particularly, to wireless local area networks. (Spec. 1). Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal. 1. A wireless area network including at least one access point and providing for multiple possible network devices, the wireless area network further being located in a structure with wiring, comprising: an interface unit wirelessly receiving a wireless signal from the access point and transmitting an electric signal on the wiring, or for receiving the electric signal from the wiring and transmitting the wireless signal to the access point, wherein the electric signal is directly electromagnetically associated with the wireless signal, wherein the wiring comprises power lines. REFERENCES Woodmas US 5,345,592 Sep. 6, 1994 Niki US 5,812,933 Sep. 22, 1998 Cook US 6,005,884 Dec. 21, 1999 Koga US 6,106,306 Aug. 22, 2000 Judd US 7,027,770 B2 Apr. 11, 2006 Appeal 2011-005447 Application 10/465,817 3 REJECTIONS Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Niki and Woodmas. Claims 3-9 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Judd, Cook, and Woodmas. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Judd, Cook, Woodmas, and Koga. Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Judd, Niki, and Woodmas. Claims 15-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Judd, Cook, Niki, and Woodmas. ANALYSIS With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants’ main contention is with respect to the limitation “wherein the wiring is existing power lines.” (App. Br. 9-10) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Examiner has relied upon the Woodmas reference which “provides both signaling and power over a single coaxial cable between a television control station and a remote camera station.” (App. Br. 10). Appellants maintain that Woodmas fails to teach “wiring comprising power lines” as featured in claim 1. Instead, Woodmas merely teaches a signal line which is used to carry a low DC voltage for powering a video camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would not consider a conventional 75 Ohm coaxial cable capable of reading on a “power line” as featured in claim 1. (App. Br. 10; see generally Reply Br. 2-4). Appeal 2011-005447 Application 10/465,817 4 The Examiner disagrees with Appellants and maintains that Appellants’ Specification identifies various structural wiring including a coaxial cable. (Ans. 31-32). The Examiner further maintains that the Woodmas reference teaches providing both a signal and power over a single coaxial cable which is used to power the equipment. (Ans. 31). We agree with the Examiner’s claim interpretation and line of reasoning that the coaxial cable supplies both signal and DC power transfer and hence are “power lines.” If Appellants intended to limit the claims to AC power lines rather than DC power then the claims should have expressly recited such a limitation. Therefore, Appellants’ argument does not show error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim 1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1. With respect to independent claim 3, 9, and 13, the Appellants advance the same argument regarding the claimed limitation “wherein the structural wiring is existing power lines within the structure.” (App. Br. 13- 15). Appellants advance the same line of reasoning that the Judd, Cook, and Woodmas references do not teach or suggest the structural wiring is “existing power lines within the structure.” (App. Br. 13-15). The Appellants identify paragraph [0020] of the Specification which states structural wiring may be “suitable wiring in a structure” and paragraph [0006] which states that existing power lines are “the wiring of a standard wall power outlet.” (App. Br. 15) (internal quotation marks omitted). We note the portion of paragraph [0006] relied upon by Appellants actually states in context: “a matching circuit that interfaces with, for example, the wiring of a standard wall power outlet, or with other cabling or wiring present within a structure, and that couples 802.11 signals transmitted to and Appeal 2011-005447 Application 10/465,817 5 received from the access point over the wiring with no translation in RF frequency.” Therefore, the paragraphs in the Specification identified by Appellants do not expressly limit the claimed invention and do not show error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of representative claim 3. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 3 and independent claims 9 and 13 grouped therewith and their respective dependent claims. With respect to dependent claim 10, Appellants repeat the language of the claim and maintain that the Koga reference fails “to contemplate matching the impedance of structural wiring, as the connectors are directed to application for printed circuit boards.” (App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 6). We disagree with Appellants’ general contention and find that the Koga reference clearly teaches and fairly suggests impedance matching for electrical circuits for reducing crosstalk noise. (Ans. 21). With respect to independent claims 14, 15, and 21, Appellants rely upon the argument that the coaxial cable shown in the Woodmas reference “cannot be considered ‘existing power lines within the structure.’” (App. Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 7-8). As discussed above, we find Appellants’ argument unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness and we group these claims as falling with representative independent claim 1. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 3-26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Appeal 2011-005447 Application 10/465,817 6 DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-26 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc