Kumaran Vijayasankar et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Dec 2, 2021

2020002761 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 2, 2021)

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.
13/443,123 04/10/2012 Kumaran Vijayasankar TI-70752 4880
23494 7590 12/02/2021
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, MS 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
SMITH, JOSHUA Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/02/2021 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte KUMARAN VIJAYASANKAR,
RAMANUJA VEDANTHAM,
BADRI N. VARADARAJAN and
ANAND G. DABAK
____________________

Appeal 2020-002761
Application 13/443,1231
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JON M. JURGOVAN, and
JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges.

JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–13, 18, 21, 22, and 24–30, constituting the only
claims pending in this application.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
2 Claims 14–17, 19, 20 and 23 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2020-002761
Application 13/443,123

2

We reverse.3
CLAIMED INVENTION
The claims are directed to beacon-enabled communications for
variable payload transfers applicable to power line communications (PLC).
Spec. Abstract. PLC devices use a superframe with beacon slots,
intermediate slots, and a poll-based contention free period (CFP) slot to
communicate. Id. A PLC device uses an intermediate slot in a first subband
to allocate a set of subbands for communicating with another PLC device.
Id. The allocated subbands are then used to communicate poll requests and
responsive data packet transfers between the PLC devices. Id.
Claim 1 is reproduced below and is representative of the claimed
invention:
1. A method comprising:
transmitting, by a first power line communication (PLC)
device, a first beacon frame in a first beacon slot in a first
subband;
transmitting, by the first PLC device, a second beacon
frame in a second beacon slot in a second subband;
communicating, by the first PLC device, in a first
intermediate slot in the first subband to allocate a set of
subbands for communicating with a second PLC device;
communicating, by the first PLC device, in a second
intermediate slot in the second subband;
transmitting, by the first PLC device to the second PLC
device, a poll request in the first subband based on the allocated
set of subbands during a poll-based contentions free period
(CFP) slot; and

3 Our Decision refers to the Specification (“Spec.”) filed April 10, 2012, the
Final Office Action (“Final Act.”) mailed May 29, 2019, the Appeal Brief
(“Appeal Br.”) filed September 4, 2019, the Examiner’s Answer (“Ans.”)
mailed December 27, 2019, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed February
27, 2020.
Appeal 2020-002761
Application 13/443,123

3

receiving, by the first PLC device from the second PLC
device, a data packet in the second subband based on the
allocated set of subbands during the poll-based CFP slot.
Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1–3, 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 18, 24, 25, and 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on Chow (US 2007/0058661 A1, published
March 15, 2007), Palanki (US 2009/0075664 A1, published Mar. 19, 2009),
and Gong (US 2011/0268094 A1, published Nov. 3, 2011). Final Act. 3–21.
Claims 4, 5, and 28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on
Chow, Palanki, Gong and Pitt (US 6,829,227 B1, issued Dec. 7, 2004).
Final Act. 21–24.
Claims 7, 10, 11, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Chow, Palanki, Gong, and Lee (US 2010/0296493 A1, published
Nov. 25, 2010). Final Act. 24–28.
Claims 21, 22, and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based
on Chow, Palanki, Gong, and McTernan (US 2002/0013897 A1, published
Jan. 31, 2002). Final Act. 28–31.
ANALYSIS
Section 103(a) Rejection
Title 35, section 103(a), provides:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not
identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 . . .,
if the differences between the subject matter sought to be
patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a
whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said
subject matter pertains.
Appeal 2020-002761
Application 13/443,123

4

The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying
factual determinations including: (1) the scope and content of the prior art;
(2) any differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art;
(3) the level of ordinary skill in the art; and (4) where present, objective
evidence of nonobviousness. Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 17–18
(1966).
The Examiner rejected independent claims 1, 12, and 25 under § 103
over the combination of Chow, Palanki, and Gong. Final Act. 3. In the
rejection, the Examiner acknowledged that Chow does not teach the claimed
“communicating to allocate a set of subbands for communicating with a
second device,” but the Examiner found this feature taught by Gong. Id. at 5
(emphasis omitted). Particularly, the Examiner finds that Gong’s request to
transmit (RTX TXOP) indicated by a first network allocation vector (NAV
706), and a clear to transmit (CTX TXOP) duration indicated by a second
network allocation vector (NAV 708), teaches the claim limitation. Id.
(citing Gong ¶¶ 50–52, Figs. 1, 7).
Appellant argues that Gong contains no mention of subbands or
allocating subbands, which is required by the claims. Appeal Br. 10. We
agree with Appellant’s argument that the cited portion of Gong does not
teach or suggest allocating subbands. Gong’s RTX TXOP duration and
CTX TXOP duration relate to the amount of time needed to transmit
messages between stations (STAs), and are indicated by respective network
allocation vectors (NAVs). Gong ¶¶ 50–52, Figs. 1, 7. Although Gong’s
“network allocation vectors” may suggest allocation related to a network, the
Appeal 2020-002761
Application 13/443,123

5

cited portion of Gong (id.) does not mention allocation of subbands of a
network.
In the Answer, the Examiner contends that Gong teaches that the
transmitting and receiving stations may communicate using multicarrier
communications signals such as orthogonal frequency division multiplied
(OFDM) signals or orthogonal frequency division multiple access
(OFDMA) signals. Ans. 39–40 (citing Gong ¶ 29, Fig. 2). The Examiner
further finds that Gong’s Figure 7 supports that transmitting stations transmit
at the same time on different subcarriers. Gong’s Figure 7 is reproduced
below.

Gong’s Figure 7 shows Stations 1–3 transmitting respective data frames 302,
306, and 710. The Examiner assumes these data frames are transmitted on
different subcarriers, i.e., that the vertical axis of Gong’s Figure 7 represents
different subbands. Ans. 40. However, the Examiner points to no teaching
in Gong to support this supposition. Even if we assume the Examiner’s
Appeal 2020-002761
Application 13/443,123

6

finding is correct that Gong’s stations transmit on different subcarriers, the
Examiner has not shown that a first device communicates to allocate a set of
subbands with which to communicate with a second device, as Appellant
recognizes. Reply Br. 6–7. Simply put, the Examiner does not show that
the cited portion of Gong teaches or suggests allocation of subbands.
Accordingly, the Examiner has not shown that Gong teaches or
suggests the claim limitation of “communicating, by the first PLC device, in
a first intermediate slot in the first subband to allocate a set of subbands for
communicating with a second PLC device” as recited in claim 1, and as
similarly recited in independent claims 12 and 25.
For the same reason, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 2–11,
13, 18, 21–22, 24, and 26–30, which are dependent from respective
independent claims 1, 12 and 25, and thus include all of their limitations.

Appeal 2020-002761
Application 13/443,123

7

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–13, 18, 21, 22, and
24–30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–3, 6, 8, 9,
12, 13, 18,
24, 25, 29
103(a) Chow, Palanki,
Gong
1–3, 6, 8,
9, 12, 13,
18, 24,
25, 29
4, 5, 28 103(a) Chow, Palanki,
Gong, Pitt
4, 5, 28
7, 10, 11,
26, 27
103(a) Chow, Palanki,
Gong, Lee
7, 10, 11,
26, 27
21, 22, 30 103(a) Chow, Palanki,
Gong, McTernan
21, 22, 30
Overall
Outcome
1–13, 18,
21, 22,
24–30

REVERSED