Ex Parte Sachs et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2014

11551937 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/551,937 10/23/2006 Joachim Sachs ME48-US2 (13611) 1238
22858 7590 04/01/2014
CARSTENS & CAHOON, LLP
P.O. Box 802334
DALLAS, TX 75380-2334
EXAMINER
LAMONT, BENJAMIN S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/01/2014 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte JOACHIM SACHS, STEFAN WAGER, and BELA RATHONYI

____________

Appeal 2011-011827
Application 11/551,937
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, CAROLYN D. THOMAS,
and ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-011827
Application 11/551,937

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-22. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The claimed invention is directed to a device and method for
improving the transmission efficiency in a communication system with a
layered protocol stack, wherein data packets are processed on an upper
protocol layer. The data packets are forwarded to a lower protocol layer for
transmission and the transmission is performed with variable channel access
delays. The upper protocol layer is notified by the lower protocol layer when
a transmission is started to allow a synchronization of timers in the upper
protocol layer. If a layer performs a scheduling of data packets for the
transmission, a rescheduling is performed during a channel access delay. See
Abstract.

Independent claims 1 and 12, reproduced below, are representative of
the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of improving the transmission efficiency of a device in a
communication system with a layered protocol stack, comprising the
steps of:

processing data packets on an upper protocol layer;

forwarding the data packets to a lower protocol layer, wherein the
lower protocol layer controls transmission of the data packets by the
device over a random access channel, wherein transmissions are
performed over the random access channel with a channel access
Appeal 2011-011827
Application 11/551,937

3
delay, and wherein at least one of said upper protocol and lower
protocol layers performs a scheduling of data packets for the
transmission by the device;

wherein the processing, forwarding and transmitting of data packets
comprises the steps of:

scheduling, by a software controlled microprocessor of the
device, of first data packets for transmission over the random
access channel by the device, wherein the data packets are
reordered, or priorities are attributed to data packets which
determine which data packets are transmitted over the random
access channel with preference;

detecting, by the software controlled microprocessor of the
device, a channel access delay on the lower layer;

performing, in response to the detecting step by the software
controlled microprocessor of the device, a check to determine
whether additional data packets are ready for forwarding to the
lower layer at or before the end of the channel access delay;

performing, by the software controlled microprocessor of the
device, a further scheduling of the first and additional data
packets; and,

transmitting over the random access channel, by a transmitter of
the device, the data packets according to the further scheduling.

12. A device for improving the transmission efficiency in a
communication system with a layered protocol stack, wherein data
packets are processed on an upper protocol layer and are forwarded to
a lower protocol layer controlling the transmission, wherein
transmissions are performed over a random access channel with a
Appeal 2011-011827
Application 11/551,937

4
channel access delay, and wherein at least one of the layers performs a
scheduling of data packets for the transmission over the random
access channel, the device comprising:

software controlled microprocessor means for scheduling of first data
packets for transmission over the random access channel, wherein the
software controlled microprocessor means reorders data packets, or
attributes priorities to data packets which determine which data
packets are transmitted over the random access channel with
preference;

software controlled microprocessor means for detecting a channel
access delay over the random access channel on the lower layer;

software controlled microprocessor means for performing a check to
determine whether additional data packets are ready for forwarding to
the lower layer at or before the end of the channel access delay;

software controlled microprocessor means for performing a further
scheduling of the first and additional data packets; and,

transmitter means for transmitting the data packets over the random
access channel according to the further scheduling.

REFERENCES and REJECTIONS
1. The Examiner rejected claims 1, 3, 12, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over "Prioritized Access in CSMA
Networks: A Node Partitioning Approach," by Rajiv Arora, et al.
(Proceedings of the 13th Conference on Local Computer Networks,
October 1988).
Appeal 2011-011827
Application 11/551,937

5
2. The Examiner rejected claims 2, 4-11, 13, and 15-22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arora in view of Chintada et al.
(U.S. Pat. No. 6,765,870 B2, Jul. 2004).

ISSUE
The issue is whether the Examiner erred in finding that Arora teaches
“detecting . . . a channel access delay,” “performing, in response to the
detecting step . . . a check to determine whether additional data packets are
ready for forwarding to the lower layer at or before the end of the channel
access delay,” and “performing . . . a further scheduling of the first and
additional data packets . . . according to the further scheduling,” as recited in
claim 1.

ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that Arora does not teach determining whether data
packets have become ready for forwarding at the lower layer at or before the
end of the channel access delay and, if so, transmitting the first packets and
additional packets according to further scheduling (App. Br. 4).
We do not agree. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions
in the Answer and we address the following primarily for emphasis (Ans.
14-16).
Arora teaches that “[i]f A defers transmission, or the channel is
sensed busy, or mA(j)> mi(k), A waits a slot until time tj+1, when it evaluates
mA(j+1) and repeats this procedure” (emphasis added) (pg. 278, 1st col.,
Protocol Description Section). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that,
station A re-evaluates the priority packet at the head of the queue in response
Appeal 2011-011827
Application 11/551,937

6
to the detecting step that the channel is busy (i.e., before the end of the
channel access delay) because the busy channel triggers station A to wait
before re-evaluating the priority value (Ans. 15).
We further agree with the Examiner that Arora teaches re-evaluation
of the priority packet before trying to acquire access to the channel a second
time (i.e., Arora used mA(j) in the first attempt to access the channel and will
use mA(j+ 1) in the second attempt) (Ans. 14-15). Accordingly, we agree
with the Examiner’s interpretation that the channel access delay is still
ongoing because station A has yet to transmit over the channel, therefore the
priority reassessment and second attempt to transmit occurs before the end
of the channel access delay (Ans. 14-15).
We also agree with the Examiner that Arora teaches “further
scheduling” because assuming that there is a first failed attempt to access the
channel, a new highest priority packet jumps at the head of station A’s
queue, but if the channel is busy, then Station A would then wait until the
next time slot to perform its third attempt at gaining access to the channel
(Ans. 15). This waiting performed by station A is a further scheduling of the
first (i.e., original packets in the queue) and additional packets (i.e., the new
highest priority packet) (Ans. 15).
Accordingly, we affirm the Examiners rejection of claim 1 and for the
same reasons the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2-22.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that Arora teaches “detecting . . .
a channel access delay,” “performing, in response to the detecting step . . . a
check to determine whether additional data packets are ready for forwarding
Appeal 2011-011827
Application 11/551,937

7
to the lower layer at or before the end of the channel access delay,” and
“performing . . . a further scheduling of the first and additional data packets
. . . according to the further scheduling,” as recited in claim 1.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-22 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

tj