Ex Parte Schultze et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 22, 2014

11299196 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 22, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte STEPHAN SCHULTZE, RIGOBERT KYNAST,
LUDWIG LEURS, and THOMAS SCHMID
____________________

Appeal 2012-000310
Application 11/299,196
Technology Center 2100
____________________

Before ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, THU A. DANG,
and LARRY J. HUME, Administrative Patent Judges.

DANG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2012-000310
Application 11/299,196

2
I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 5-16, and 20-33 (App. Br. 3; Ans. 8-11). Claims 2-4 and 17-19 are
canceled (App. Br. 3). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

A. INVENTION
Appellants’ invention is directed to a method for data transmission
between users within a communication system that fragments the data into a
plurality of partial telegrams when the data exceeds a predefined maximum
quantity and transmits one fragment after another in a defined sequence of
partial telegrams (Abstract).

B. ILLUSTRATIVE CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for regulating a transmission of a quantity of user data to
be transmitted between a plurality of users of a communication system via a
field-bus system, wherein the plurality of users communicate by using data
telegrams, the method comprising:
providing in each data telegram at least one destination address, one
source address, and a quantity of user data to be transmitted, wherein a
predefined maximum quantity of user data for one data telegram is
stipulated;
fragmenting the quantity of user data to be transmitted into a plurality
of partial telegrams, if the predefined maximum quantity of user data for one
data telegram is less than the quantity of user data to be transmitted; and
transmitting the plurality of partial telegrams one after another in a
defined sequence, wherein each partial telegram within the defined sequence
of partial telegrams is differentiated based on a telegram identifier;
wherein the plurality of partial telegrams within the defined sequence
of partial telegrams are logically linked together, so that the defined
Appeal 2012-000310
Application 11/299,196

3
sequence of partial telegrams appears as a single data telegram for at least
one of a transmitting user and a receiving user, and
wherein the receiving user is able to automatically filter out partial
telegrams addressed to the receiving user from the defined sequence of
partial telegrams based on an offset stored in the user.

C. REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Rupp et al. US 7,020,711 B2 Feb. 28, 2006
Hoekstra EP 0 683 910 B1 Dec. 18, 2002
Bellaton et al. US 6,026,093 Feb. 15, 2000
Aoki et al. US 2005/0030965 Feb. 10, 2005
Kiesel et al. US 2002/0037017 A1 Mar. 28, 2002

Claims 1, 5-16, 20-24, and 30-331 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Rupp in view of Hoekstra, Bellaton, and
Aoki.
Claims 11-15 and 25-302 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Rupp in view of Hoekstra, Bellaton, Aoki, and
Kiesel.

II. ISSUES
The dispositive issues before us are whether the Examiner has erred in
finding that the combination of Rupp, Hoekstra, Bellaton, and Aoki teaches

1 Claims 18 and 19 have been canceled (App. Br. 3).
2 The Examiner’s detailed statement of rejection includes claims 25-30 (Ans.
10-11); yet, these claims were not included in the rejection heading (Ans. 8).
We consider this merely to be a typographical error.
Appeal 2012-000310
Application 11/299,196

4
or would have suggested “wherein the plurality of partial telegrams within
the defined sequence of partial telegrams are logically linked together, so
that the defined sequence of partial telegrams appears as a single data
telegram for at least one of a transmitting user and a receiving user” and
“wherein the receiving user is able to automatically filter out partial
telegrams addressed to the receiving user from the defined sequence of
partial telegrams based on an offset stored in the user” (claim 1, emphasis
added).

III. FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellants, a sequence of partial telegrams are
logically linked together, so that the sequence of partial telegrams appears as
a single data telegram or as though it were a single longer telegram (Spec.
¶ [0012]).
Aoki
2. Aoki discloses wireless packet communications in which a
multiple number of packets are concatenated so as to be communicated
(Figs. 3 and 4; ¶¶ [0051] and [0055]).
3. A receiving apparatus includes a concatenated-packet reception
controller 31, which receives and dismantles the concatenated packet, while
transmitting an acknowledgement signal Ack at an appropriate timing
(Fig. 2; ¶ [0050]). The concatenated-packet reception controller 31includes
Appeal 2012-000310
Application 11/299,196

5
a concatenated-packet dismantler 42 that fetches a packet addressed to its
own station from the concatenated packet (¶ [0051]).
4. Communications terminal A1 concatenates the individual
packets addressed to differing terminals B2, C3, and D4 together to form a
single packet including a Media Access Control (MAC) header indicating
the individual destination address and a payload data portion (¶¶ [0053] and
[0055]). In particular, terminal A1 appends a wireless header, a wireless
preamble, and a MAC header indicating a multicast address so as to
encapsulate the concatenated individual packets and to provide multicast-
transmitting for addressing to a multicast address designated as a destination
MAC address (Fig. 4; ¶¶ [0055] and [0059]-[0063]).

IV. ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5-16, 20-24, and 30-33
Appellants contend, “the cited portions [of Aoki] plainly refer to
‘individual packets’ addressed to a communication terminal, in which the
individual packets are concatenated into a single data packet;” yet, “[t]here
is no mention whatsoever of a plurality of individual data packets within the
concatenated single data packet being logically linked so as to appear as
an individual data packet to a communication terminal” (App. Br. 13).
Appellants assert even though “the concatenated-packet dismantler 42
fetches any packets addressed to its own station from the concatenated
packet,” this “is clearly not the same as transmitting a single data stream in
which a plurality of individual data packets within the concatenated single
data packet are logically linked so as to appear as an individual data
packet to a receiver” (App. Br. 14). Appellants argue –“[t]here is no
Appeal 2012-000310
Application 11/299,196

6
mention whatsoever of the receiving user being able to automatically filter
out partial telegrams . . . based on an offset stored in the user[’s receiver]”
(App. Br. 14), for “[t]here is no disclosure of any address information being
stored in the receiver” (App. Br. 15). Appellants finally contend, “there
would be no motivation to combine the four disparate references” (App. Br.
15).
However, the Examiner finds Aoki “teaches how a plurality of
individual data packets are concatenated to provide in state 3 a single data
packet comprising of a packet with a multicast address and payload”
(Ans. 12). The Examiner notes “the [S]pecification provides no limiting
definition of logically linked;” other than it “indicates that logically linked
indicate a sequential concatenation of the partial packets” (id.). The
Examiner finds the “wireless preamble and header . . . mak[e] the individual
data packets fully encapsulated and appear as an individual data packet”
(Ans. 13). The Examiner finally notes “the motivation of providing for
more efficient data transmission as clearly taught by Aoki;” whereas, “[o]ne
of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the data flow
scheme of Ritter in the system of Rupp/Hoekstra/Bellaton support the
transmission of a plurality of messages in an efficient transmission medium”
(Ans. 15).
Appellants’ argument “[t]here is no disclosure of any address
information being stored in the receiver” is not commensurate in scope with
the specific language of claim 1 (App. Br. 15). In particular, claim 1 does
not recite such filtering of partial telegrams based on “address information
being stored in the receiver,” as Appellants argue (id.).
Appeal 2012-000310
Application 11/299,196

7
We give the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir.
1997). Claim 1 does not define “logically linked” other than the partial
telegrams “appears as a single data stream” (claim 1). The Specification
provides that a sequence of partial telegrams which “logically linked” appear
as a single data telegram or as though it were a single longer telegram
(FF 1). Thus, we give “logically linked” its broadest reasonable
interpretation as data that is appended together, which is consistent with the
Specification and claim 1.
Aoki is directed to wireless packet communications in which a
multiple number of packets are concatenated such that a terminal
concatenates individual packets that are addressed to differing terminals to
form a single packet having a MAC header and a payload data portion (FF 2
and 4). The receiving apparatus includes a concatenated-packet reception
controller that includes a concatenated-packet dismantler, which dismantles
the concatenated packet and fetches a packet addressed to its own station
from the concatenated packet (FF 3). In particular, the terminal transmitting
the concatenated packet concatenates the individual packets addressed to
differing terminal and appends a wireless header, a wireless preamble, and a
MAC header indicating a multicast address (FF 4). We agree with the
Examiner’s finding the “wireless preamble and header . . . mak[e] the
individual data packets fully encapsulated and appear as an individual data
packet” (Ans. 13). That is, we find Aoki’s encapsulated packet containing
the wireless header, wireless preamble, and MAC header along with the
individual packets addressed to the different terminals that are data
Appeal 2012-000310
Application 11/299,196

8
appended together (“logically linked” so as to “appear as a single data
telegram”) (claim 1, FF 2-4).
We also agree with the Examiner’s explicit motivation that combining
the references would be obvious, since it would “provid[e] for more efficient
data transmission” (Ans. 15). The Supreme Court has stated that “[t]he
combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be
obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co.
v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, we find no error in the Examiner’s finding that the combination
of (1) Rupp’s communications system, where the users communicate by data
telegram (col. 5, l. 50-col. 6, l. 7), (2) Hoekstra’s system that fragments data
into partial telegrams (¶ [0003]), and (3) the single concatenated packet
generation as disclosed in Aoki, produces logically linked partial telegrams
that appear as a single data telegram which would be obvious (Ans. 6-7;
FF2-4).
Accordingly, we find no error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Rupp in view of Hoekstra, Bellaton, and
Aoki. Further, independent claims 16, 22, 23, and 24, having similar claim
language, and claims 5-15, 20, 21, and 30-33 (depending from claims 1 and
16), which have not been argued separately, fall with claim 1.
Claims 11-15 and 25-30
Appellants argue claims 11-15 and 25-30 are patentable over the cited
prior art for the same reasons asserted with respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 15).
As noted supra, however, we find that the combined teachings of
Rupp, Hoekstra, Bellaton, and Aoki at least suggest all the features of
claim 1. We therefore affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11-15 and
Appeal 2012-000310
Application 11/299,196

9
25-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Rupp in view of
Hoekstra, Bellaton, Aoki, and Kiesel.

V. CONCLUSION AND DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 5-16, and 20-33 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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

lp