Marc Aoun et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Apr 27, 2020

14759817 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Apr. 27, 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.
14/759,817 07/08/2015 MARC AOUN 2012P00959WOUS 5469
138325 7590 04/27/2020
Signify Holding B.V.
465 Columbus Avenue
Suite 330
Valhalla, NY 10595
EXAMINER
LAM, YEE F
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/27/2020 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):
Gigi.Miller@signify.com
jo.cangelosi@signify.com
kim.larocca@signify.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte MARC AOUN, DANIEL MARTIN GOERGEN, and
TIM CORNEEL WILHELMUS SCHENK
____________________

Appeal 2018–007555
Application 14/759,817
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JOYCE CRAIG, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.

FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–20, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. 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. “The word ‘applicant’ when used in this title refers to the
inventor or all of the joint inventors, or to the person applying for a patent as
provided in §§ 1.43, 1.45, or 1.46.” 37 C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Philips Lighting Holding B.V. (Appeal
Br. 4).
Appeal 2018-007555
Application 14/759,817

2

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to wireless mesh networks,
and particularly to “a node for a wireless network…wherein reliability of
data transmission in the wireless mesh network is ensured, while data
overhead of the transmissions is reduced” (Spec., page 2, lines 25–28). The
inventors recognized that current mesh networks, based on how many hops
or geographical distance a detection message is required to travel, require a
significant number of transmissions of a single message (see Spec., page 1,
lines 20–23). This can waste bandwidth and limits the maximum node size
of a network (see Spec., page 2, lines 4–5). Accordingly, Appellant
discloses and claims a node of a wireless network (see claim 1) and a
method of controlling a node of a wireless network (see claim 15), that uses
topological, functional and/or application-specific aspects to determine
retransmission of a received message (see Spec., page 2, lines 29–32).
Exemplary claim 1, under appeal, with emphases added to key portions of
the claim at issue, reads as follows:
1. A receiving node of a wireless network, comprising:
a hardware processor configured to decide about
retransmission of a message received from a transmitting
node, based on whether the transmitting node has at least one
layout element of a layout plan in common with the receiving
node,
wherein the layout plan relates to a spatial arrangement
of the wireless network, and
wherein the at least one layout element of the layout
plan is associated with the receiving node.
Appeal 2018-007555
Application 14/759,817

3

Appeal Br. 16, Claims Appendix (emphases added). Remaining
independent claim 15 recites a method having limitations commensurate in
scope with the limitations of claim 1.
The Examiner’s Rejections
(1) The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as based on a disclosure which is not enabling (Final Act. 2).
Because the Examiner has withdrawn the § 112, first paragraph, rejection
(see Ans. 9), we will not address this rejection or Appellant’s arguments
directed thereto any further.
(2) The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and
distinctly claim the subject matter which Appellant regards as the invention
(Final Act. 3). Because the Examiner has withdrawn the § 112, second
paragraph, rejection (see Ans. 9), we will not address this rejection or
Appellant’s arguments directed thereto any further.
(3) Claims 1–20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over McMillin (US 2005/0226201, hereinafter, “McMillin”)
and Siu et al. (US 8,193,929, hereinafter, “Siu”). Final Act. 5–10; Ans. 3–8.
Appellant’s Contentions
Appellant primarily contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) based on the failure of the applied
references to teach or suggest “a hardware processor configured to decide
about retransmission of a message received from a transmitting node, based
on whether the transmitting node has at least one layout element of a layout
plan in common with the receiving node,” as recited in claim 1 (see Appeal
Br. 10–12; Reply Br. 4–6).
Appeal 2018-007555
Application 14/759,817

4

Principal Issue on Appeal
Based on Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief (Appeal Br. 10–
12) and Reply Brief (Reply Br. 4–6), the following dispositive issue is
presented on appeal:
Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1–20
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because McMillin, and thus the combination of
McMillin and Siu, fails to teach or suggest “a hardware processor
configured to decide about retransmission of a message received from a
transmitting node, based on whether the transmitting node has at least one
layout element of a layout plan in common with the receiving node,” as
recited in claim 1, and as commensurately recited in remaining independent
claim 15?

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs (Appeal Br.
10–12; Reply Br. 4–6), the Examiner’s rejection (Final Act. 5-10; Ans. 3–8),
and the Examiner’s response (Ans. 9–17) to Appellant’s arguments in the
Appeal Brief. We are persuaded by Appellant’s contentions that the
Examiner has not sufficiently shown that McMillin, and thus the
combination of applied references, teaches or suggests the hardware
processor recited in claim 1, and the commensurate limitations found in
remaining independent claim 15. Our reasoning follows.
The USPTO “must examine the relevant data and articulate a
satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection
between the facts found and the choice made.” Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n
v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 (1983) (internal
Appeal 2018-007555
Application 14/759,817

5

quotation marks and citation omitted); see Synopsys, Inc. v. Mentor
Graphics Corp., 814 F.3d 1309, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (stating that, as an
administrative agency, the PTAB “must articulate logical and rational
reasons for [its] decisions” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).
We will not resort to speculation or assumptions to cure the deficiencies in
the Examiner’s fact finding. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017 (CCPA
1967). In this light, and in view of the Examiner’s findings of fact for the
rejection of claim 1 (see Final Act. 5; Ans. 4), we are persuaded that the
Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 over McMillin and Siu.
In the Final Rejection, the Examiner cites to paragraphs 210 through
211 and Figure 6 of McMillin as teaching the hardware processor recited in
claim 1. However, the Examiner fails to articulate within the rejection why
these paragraphs of McMillin are considered to teach or suggest that the
hardware processor decides about retransmission of a message received from
a transmitting node, based on whether the transmitting node has at least one
layout element of a layout plan in common with the receiving node. In the
Advisory Action mailed February 7, 2018, the Examiner interprets McMillin
to require that the minion devices be in a common virtual geolocation in
order to transmit messages (see Advisory Act. 2, citing McMillin ¶¶ 221–
228 and 235), and that transmission of messages is controlled by hop-count
(id., citing McMillin ¶ 210). Further, in the Answer, the Examiner finds that
McMillin controls message transmission based on hop-count, and finds that
this hop-count based transmission is similar to that disclosed in the
Specification at paragraphs 11 and 13 (see Ans. 12–15). Finally, the
Examiner finds that McMillin teaches that (i) all minion devices can be
installed in an area; and (ii) once all minion devices know each other’s
Appeal 2018-007555
Application 14/759,817

6

locations and hop-counts, retransmission occurs based on the closest minion
(see Ans. 17).
Appellant argues that McMillin, at paragraphs 210 through 211,
teaches transmission of received messages based solely on hop-count (see
Appeal Br. 10–11). In particular, Appellant highlights paragraph 211,
noting that McMillin teaches “sending a message to the database server is
accomplished by looking up the identity of the Gateway with the smallest
hop count and sending out the message to the appropriate intermediary”
(see Appeal Br. 11). Further, Appellant argues, that even if McMillin
teaches that minions share a location, the transmission of messages is still
based solely on hop-count, and not based on a shared location or other
layout element or plan (see id.). Appellant admits that the sections of the
Specification cited by the Examiner indicate that hop-count bounding of
nodes is possible (see Reply Br. 5); however, Appellant correctly notes that
the hop-count bounding is combined with a layout element dependent
decision, as pure hop-count flooding cannot achieve the result desired by the
invention (see Reply Br. 4–5). Finally, Appellant argues “[h]owever, even if
the minion devices [in McMillin] can be placed on thruways and highways
and the minion devices can determine the nearest devices, the reference does
not teach that the decision on a retransmission is based on whether the
minion devices share the same highway or share any other layout element in
common” (see Reply Br. 5).
In light of our careful review of McMillin, we conclude that the
strength of Appellant’s contentions (Appeal Br. 10–11; Reply Br. 4-6) that
McMillin teaches a system in which message transmission is based on hop-
count, such that a message is transmitted to the next node regardless of the
Appeal 2018-007555
Application 14/759,817

7

location of the node outweighs the strength of the Examiner’s findings and
reasoning that McMillin, whether taken individually or in some combination
with Siu, teaches or suggests the hardware processor recited in claim 1. At
best, the Examiner’s proposed combination teaches retransmission of a
message to additional nodes within a mesh network, but the rejection and
subsequent arguments fail to specifically identify any portion of McMillin
which teaches that a determination of whether to retransmit a message is
based on a common layout plan between the transmitting node and the
receiving node. In view of the foregoing, we agree with Appellant’s
contentions (Appeal Br. 10–11) that the Examiner has not adequately shown
that McMillin, and thus the combination of McMillin and Siu, teaches or
suggests the hardware processor of claim 1 (i.e., being configured to decide
about retransmission of a message received from a transmitting node, based
on whether the transmitting node has at least one layout element of a layout
plan in common with the receiving node), and the commensurate limitations
recited in claim 15.
As a result, based on the record before us, Appellant has shown the
Examiner erred in rejecting independent claims 1 and 15, and thus claims 2–
14 and 16–20 depending respectively therefrom, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
and we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1–20
over the combination of McMillin and Siu.2

2 We recognize that Appellant’s arguments concerning the obviousness
rejection present additional issues regarding claims 13, 16, 18 and 19 (see,
e.g., Appeal Br. 12–15; Reply Br. 6–10). Because we were persuaded of
error by the issue regarding claim 1, we do not reach the additional issues, as
the issue as to claims 1 and 15 are dispositive of the appeal.

Appeal 2018-007555
Application 14/759,817

8

CONCLUSION
For all of the reasons above, we hold as follows:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–20 103(a) McMillin, Siu 1–20

REVERSED