GainSpan Corporation

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 25, 2020

2019003490 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 25, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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.
14/797,195 07/13/2015 Sibasis Purohit P-570139-US 9714
49443 7590 06/25/2020
Pearl Cohen Zedek Latzer Baratz LLP
1500 Broadway
12th Floor
New York, NY 10036
EXAMINER
WONG, XAVIER S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/25/2020 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):
Arch-USPTO@PearlCohen.com
USPTO@PearlCohen.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte SIBASIS PUROHIT
____________________

Appeal 2019-003490
Application 14/797,195
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.

NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
non-final rejection of claims 1, 2, 4 through 9, 11 through 16, and 18
through 20. Oral arguments were heard on June 17, 2020. A transcript of
the hearing will be added to the record in due course. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). According to Appellant, GainSpan Corporation is the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-003490
Application 14/797,195

2
INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method for use in creation of a wireless
mesh network among proximately located wireless devices. Spec. ¶¶ 2, 9.
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below.
1. A method performed in a wireless device, said
method comprising:
receiving a packet from a sender node that is in a
real-world environment according to a routing protocol,
wherein said wireless device is one node in a plurality of
nodes, the plurality of nodes are all within a
communication range of each other, the plurality of
nodes communicate in a manner that treats messages
according to a routing protocol of a test environment,
wherein said sender node is located at a distance within a
wireless transmission range of said wireless device, and
wherein said real-world environment includes all nodes
that are within a wireless transmission range of said
wireless device and wherein said real-world ;
determining a position information of said sender
node;
calculating a distance to said sender node from
said wireless device, wherein said distance is in X,Y,Z
coordinates; and
if said distance to said sender node from said
wireless device is within said communication range of
said wireless device, then processing said packet
according to said routing protocol in said test
environment, else discarding said packet.
wherein said position information of said sender
node and said distance are part of a medium access
control (MAC) address of said sender node, wherein said
MAC address is part of said packet received from said
sender node, said determining comprises: examining said
MAC address in said packet for said position information
of said sender node.
Appeal 2019-003490
Application 14/797,195

3
EXAMINER’S REJECTION2
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4 through 9, 11 through 16, and 18
through 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Abraham (US
2013/0250931 A1, pub. Sept. 26, 2013) and Vinicius Bohrer et al. (WiNes -
A Flexible Framework for Wireless Network Description and Simulation 1–
27 (2012)) (“Bohrer”). Non-Final Act. 3–9.

ANALYSIS
Appellant presents several arguments directed to the Examiner’s
obviousness rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 15 on pages 4 through
8 of the Appeal Brief. The dispositive issues presented by these arguments
are whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of the references
teaches that the position information and the distances are part of the
medium access control (MAC) address of the sender node, and that the step
of determining position includes examining the MAC address for position
information, as is recited in each of the independent claims.
The Examiner finds that Abraham does not teach that the distance is
determined based upon x, y, z coordinates, and that the position information
and distance are part of a medium access control (MAC) address. Non-Final
Act. 5. The Examiner cites to Bohrer as teaching determining distance
between nodes in x, y, z coordinates. Id. (citing Bohrer page 15, section
2.2.4); Answer 6–7. Further, the Examiner, cites to Bohrer’s use of a

2 Throughout this Decision we refer to the Appeal Brief filed December 14,
2018 (“Appeal Br.”); Reply Brief filed March 28, 2019 (Reply Br.); Non-
Final Office Action mailed May 31, 2018 (“Non-Final Act.”); and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed February 25, 2019 (“Ans.”).
Appeal 2019-003490
Application 14/797,195

4
NodeID and the connections table to determine communication range as
teaching the claimed MAC address with position information. Non-Final
Act. 5–6. Additionally in the Answer, the Examiner finds that Bohrer
teaches that each node has a unique address constituting an IP and port, and
that the NodeID, TCPIP address and port numbers are used in conjunction
with a connections table to determine coordinates of the node. Answer 7
(citing Bohrer page 10). The Examiner states:
By definition, a MAC address is “a unique identifier for
an Ethernet or network adapter over a network” to a certain
device/node. The NodeID is based on at least in part of a port
number (e.g. each port can have its own MAC address: an
example is prior art Brouwer et al, US 2004/0057425 A1 that
describes in paragraph 0022 “Location can be determined based
on the unique MAC address for the port in use by the calling
party since location information is stored in the ALI database
for each MAC address by the system administrator”) in a
Bluetooth, Wi-Fi or Zigbee network (Bohrer, page 5,
Introduction).
Answer 8 (emphasis omitted).
We have reviewed the teachings of Bohrer cited by the Examiner and
disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Bohrer teaches the disputed
limitation. Each of the independent claims recites that the position
information of the sender node and distance are part of the MAC address.
The portions of Bohrer cited by the Examiner show that the NodeID is used
to determine position, but not that the position is part of the address; rather
Bohrer teaches that the comparing engine uses the NodeID to find the
position data in the “Connections Table,” which is not part of the NodeID or
part of an address (see Bohrer sec. 2.2.4, see also page 10, “The Core [which
as shown in figure 5 is not part of the sending node] then creates a new entry
Appeal 2019-003490
Application 14/797,195

5
on the Connections Table”). Further, regarding the Examiner’s citation to
Brouwer et al., US 2004/0057425, this reference is not listed as being part of
the obviousness rejection nor is it of record; as such, we have not considered
the reference. Accordingly, we do not find the Examiner has cited sufficient
evidence to demonstrate that the combined teachings of Abraham and
Bohrer teach or suggest all of the limitations of independent claims 1, 8, and
15, and we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1,
2, 4 through 9, 11 through 16, and 18 through 20.
We additionally, note that each of the independent claims includes a
typographic error by reciting “of said wireless device and wherein said real-
world.” Should there be further prosecution of the case, Appellant is
encouraged to amend the claims to delete this error.

CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4–9, 11–
16, 18–20
103 Abraham, Bohrer 1, 2, 4–9, 11–
16, 18–20

REVERSED