Ex Parte Thommana et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 26, 2018

14803881 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 26, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/803,881 07/20/2015
137312 7590 07/30/2018
Rockwell Collins, Inc./Suiter Swantz
Suiter Swantz pc llo
14301 FNB Parkway
Suite 220
Omaha, NE 68154
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
John Thommana
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.
15CR076 4015
EXAMINER
KASSA, ZEWDU A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2637
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/30/2018 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):
file@suiter.com
srs@suiter.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN THOMMANA, NA VEEN RAJANIKANTHA,
and LIZY PAUL 1
Appeal2018-001901
Application 14/803,881
Technology Center 2600
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, HUNG H. BUI, and
DAVID J. CUTITTA II, Administrative Patent Judges.
STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Rockwell Collins, Inc.
See App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-001901
Application 14/803,881
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part. 2
THE INVENTION
The claims are directed to adaptive frequency management utilizing
multiple frequency sets. Spec., Title.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 are independent. Representative claims 8 and 11,
reproduced below with disputed limitations italicized, illustrate the claimed
subject matter:
8. A frequency hopping radio network, comprising:
a plurality of radio nodes,
wherein each radio node of the plurality of radio nodes includes:
a non-transitory processor-readable memory configured to
store a plurality of frequency sets, wherein each frequency set of
the plurality of frequency sets includes a plurality of frequency
channels specified for frequency hopping; and
at least one processor in communication with the non-
transitory processor-readable memory, the at least one processor
configured to:
select or change a selection of one of the plurality
of frequency sets as a current frequency set;
generate an index value;
select one of the plurality of frequency channels
specified in the current frequency set according to the
index value; and
control a waveform of the radio based on the
selected frequency channel for a hopping period, and
2 We refer to the Final Office Action mailed Jan. 23, 2017 ("Final Act."); the
Appeal Brief filed June 23, 2017 ("App. Br."); the Examiner's Answer
mailed Oct. 10, 2017 ("Ans."); and the Reply Brief filed Dec. 12, 2017.
2
Appeal2018-001901
Application 14/803,881
wherein the at least one processor of each radio node ofthe
plurality of radio nodes is configured to select the current
frequency set in a same deterministic and synchronous manner.
11. The frequency hopping radio network of claim 8, wherein
the at least one processor of each radio node of the plurality of
radio nodes is further configured to select a frequency set
different from the current frequency set based on at least one of
a pseudorandom algorithm and a periodic interval.
App. Br. 25 (Claims App'x).
REFERENCES
The following prior art is relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the
claims on appeal:
Schilling
So et al.
us 6,128,328
US 2010/0046583 Al
REJECTION
Oct. 3, 2000
Feb.25,2010
Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Schilling and So. Final Act. 4--8.
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2-8)
and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner's Answer in
response to Appellants' Appeal Brief ( Ans. 6-11) and concur with the
3
Appeal2018-001901
Application 14/803,881
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following for
emphasis.
In support of the obviousness rejection of representative claim 8 and
similarly, claims 1 and 15, the Examiner finds Schilling's base station selects
a frequency set to communicate with a remote unit based upon the remote
unit's location relative to the base station. Ans. 9 (citing Schilling 3:25-57).
The Examiner also finds Schilling's base station, shown in Figure 8,
communicates with the remote unit using a different frequency set when the
remote unit changes location to a different concentric region. Id. ( citing
Schilling 6:61-7:14, Fig. 8). Accordingly, the Examiner finds Schilling's
base station "select[ s] or change[ s] a selection of one of the plurality of
frequency sets as a current frequency set," as recited in claim 8. Id.
Appellants dispute the Examiner's findings regarding Schilling. In
particular, Appellants argue Schilling does not teach or suggest "at least one
processor configured to ... select or change a selection of one of the
plurality of frequency sets as a current frequency set" as recited in claim 8.
App. Br. 17. Appellants argue Schilling's frequency set is assigned to a
concentric region and a node communicates using the assigned frequencies
based upon the node's location. App. Br. 17-18; Reply Br. 3--4.
Accordingly to Appellants, because Schilling's frequency set is merely
assigned by location relative to the base station, the frequency set is neither
"selected" nor "changed." Id.
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because, under a broad but
reasonable interpretation of the argued limitation, Schilling's assignment of
a frequency set to a concentric region is selecting the frequency set for the
concentric region. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue for the first time that
4
Appeal2018-001901
Application 14/803,881
Schilling does not teach or suggest, as well as teaches away from,
"select[ing] frequency sets in the same deterministic and synchronous
manner." Reply Br. 4--5. However, Appellants fail to show good cause for
these new arguments, and as such, Appellants' belated arguments are
deemed waived as untimely. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41(b)(2) (2016). See In re Hyatt,
211 F.3d 1367, 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (noting that an argument not first
raised in the brief to the Board is waived on appeal); Ex parte Nakashima,
93 USPQ2d 1834, 1837 (BPAI 2010) (informative) (explaining that
arguments and evidence not timely presented in the principal Brief, will not
be considered when filed in a Reply Brief, absent a showing of good cause
explaining why the argument could not have been presented in the Principal
Brief); Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1477 ( BPAI 2010) (informative)
("[p ]roperly interpreted, the Rules do not require the Board to take up a
belated argument that has not been addressed by the Examiner, absent a
showing of good cause.").
For the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19, and 20.
Claims 4, 11, and 18
Claims 4, 11, and 18 depend from independent claims 1, 8, and 15,
and further recite: "wherein the at least one processor is further configured
to select a frequency set different from the current frequency set based on at
least one of: a pseudorandom algorithm and a periodic interval."
The Examiner finds Schilling's frequency-hopping communications
system periodically changes the channel frequency in a pseudorandom
5
Appeal2018-001901
Application 14/803,881
manner. Final Act. 6-7 (citing Schilling 5: 27-35 and Appellants'
background).
Appellants contend Schilling assigns a frequency set to a network
node based only upon the node's location and, therefore, Schilling does not
teach or suggest selecting a frequency set based upon a pseudorandom
algorithm and a periodic interval, as recited in claim 11. App. Br. 22-23;
Reply Br. 6. We agree.
Schilling describes six concentric regions around a base station
(Schilling Fig. 8), where each concentric region is assigned a unique
frequency set. Each concentric region is divided into six sectors, each being
assigned a frequency (e.g., Schilling Fig. 8 shows remote unit UA within one
sector assigned frequency F2 of the outer-most concentric region of cell A).
Although Schilling describes Figure 8 as "a PH/CDMA system" (Schilling
4:61---63) and explains frequency-hopping code division multiple access
(PH/CDMA) periodically changes a channel frequency in a pseudorandom
manner (Schilling 5:28-34), that is, changing a frequency from within a set
of frequencies, the Examiner has not adequately explained how Schilling's
disclosure teaches or suggests "selecting a frequency set according to a
periodic interval and a pseudorandom algorithm" as recited in claims .
For the reasons set forth above, we do not sustain the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claims 4, 11, and 18.
Claims 3, 10, and 17
In the Reply Brief, Appellants also raise new arguments that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claims 3, 10, and 17. Reply Br. 5. However,
Appellants' belated arguments are deemed waived as untimely because the
6
Appeal2018-001901
Application 14/803,881
Examiner has not been provided a chance to respond and Appellants fail to
show good cause for these new arguments. 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 (b )(2).
CONCLUSIONS
On the record before us, we conclude Appellants have not
demonstrated the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17, 19,
and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, but have demonstrated the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 4, 11, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-17,
19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We reverse the Examiner's decision to reject claims 4, 11, and 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
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). See 37
C.F.R. § 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
7