SILVER SPRINGS NETWORKS, INC.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jun 24, 2020

13921004 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jun. 24, 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.
13/921,004 06/18/2013 Cristina SEIBERT SILS/0047US
(SSN-209-US1)
1055
103346 7590 06/24/2020
Artegis Law Group, LLP/Itron Inc.
7710 Cherry Park Drive Suite T #104
Houston, TX 77095
EXAMINER
OH, ANDREW CHUNG SUK
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/24/2020 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):
jmatthews@artegislaw.com
kcruz@artegislaw.com
sjohnson@artegislaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CRISTINA SEIBERT, JOHN NOTOR, and
GEORGE H. FLAMMER III
Appeal 2019-002272
Application 13/921,004
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
final rejection of claims 1–28. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Itron Networked Solutions,
Inc. Appeal Brief 3, filed June 11, 2018 (Appeal Br.).
Appeal 2019-002272
Application 13/921,004

2
BACKGROUND
This patent application concerns “configuring a network of devices to
operate within a television whitespace spectrum.” Specification ¶ 1, filed
June 18, 2013 (Spec.). Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter:
1. A computer-implemented method for configuring a node to
communicate on a television white space (TVWS) spectrum of
frequencies, the method comprising:
receiving, at a server, a request for at least one operating
parameter from a first node that resides at a first location in a
network;
retrieving, from a first database that is physically remote
from the server and coupled to the server, one or more entries
associated with the first location, wherein each of the one or more
entries includes a quality of service metric for a different TVWS
channel at the first location;
determining the at least one operating parameter for the
first node based on the quality of service metrics included in the
one or more entries, wherein the at least one operating parameter
comprises an optimization setting for processing data transmitted
to or by the first node via the available TVWS channel; and
transmitting the at least one operating parameter to the first
node, wherein the first node is configured to perform future
communications over the available TVWS channel according to
the at least one operating parameter.
Appeal Br. 16.

Appeal 2019-002272
Application 13/921,004

3
REJECTIONS
Claims 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis 
1, 3, 10, 12, 19–
21, 23, 25–27
103 Schmidt,2 McCann3
2, 11 103 Schmidt, McCann, Vuyyuru4
4, 6, 7, 9, 13, 15,
16, 18, 22
103 Schmidt, McCann, Ojard5
5, 14 103 Schmidt, McCann, Azenko6
8, 17 103 Schmidt, McCann, Ojard, Bahl7
24 103 Schmidt, McCann, Bahl
28 103 Schmidt, McCann, Shiu8
DISCUSSION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections and Appellant’s
arguments, and Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As
consistent with the discussion below, we adopt the Examiner’s reasoning,
findings, and conclusions on pages 2–21 of the Final Office Action mailed
November 6, 2017 (Final Act.), and pages 3–26 of the Examiner’s Answer
mailed November 15, 2018 (Ans.). We address Appellant’s arguments in
turn.
Claim 1
Claim 1 recites “determining the at least one operating parameter for
the first node based on the quality of service metrics included in the one or
more entries, wherein the at least one operating parameter comprises an

2 Schmidt et al. (US 2013/0115984 A1; May 9, 2013).
3 McCann et al. (US 2011/0280180 A1; November 17, 2011).
4 Vuyyuru et al. (US 2013/0122819 A1; May 16, 2013).
5 Ojard (US 2004/0190641 A1; September 30, 2004).
6 Azenko et al. (US 2005/0039103 A1; February 17, 2005).
7 Bahl et al. (US 2011/0317019 A1; December 29, 2011).
8 Shiu et al. (US 2004/0082311 A1; April 29, 2004).
Appeal 2019-002272
Application 13/921,004

4
optimization setting for processing data transmitted to or by the first node
via the available TVWS channel.” Appeal Br. 16. Claim 1 also recites
“transmitting the at least one operating parameter to the first node.” Appeal
Br. 16. The Examiner found that Schmidt teaches “at least one operating
parameter” because Schmidt discloses noise floor, channel, and availability
parameters. Final Act. 5. The Examiner also found that Schmidt teaches
“transmitting the at least one operating parameter to the first node” because
Schmidt discloses sending the noise floor, channel, and availability
parameters to a radio device. See Final Act. 5–6.
Appellant argues that the Examiner erroneously found that Schmidt’s
noise floor (which Appellant calls a “noise floor level”) teaches “at least one
operating parameter.” See Appeal Br. 10–12; Reply Brief 3–5, filed January
15, 2019 (Reply Br.). Appellant asserts that Schmidt’s noise floor “is
nothing more than a quality of service metric” and points out that the
disputed limitations require determining at least one operating parameter
based on a quality of service metric, the at least one operating parameter
including an optimization setting for processing data transmitted to or by the
first node. Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends that “because the noise floor
level . . . is only a quality of service metric . . . the noise floor level cannot,
as a logical matter, also be an optimization setting for a node that is
determined based on the quality of service metric, as required to meet the
claim language.” Appeal Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4 (making similar
arguments).
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. As an initial
matter, in addition to finding that Schmidt’s noise floor teaches “at least one
operating parameter,” the Examiner also found that Schmidt discloses
Appeal 2019-002272
Application 13/921,004

5
channel and availability parameters that teach this element. Final Act. 5; see
also Spec. ¶ 51 (explaining that a server may “determine operating
parameters for nodes, including a channel on which those nodes should
communicate” (reference numbers omitted)). Appellant does not address this
finding and therefore has forfeited the argument that Schmidt’s channel and
availability parameters are not “at least one operating parameter.” See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37 (c)(1)(iv). Appellant thus has not persuaded us that the
Examiner erred in finding that Schmidt teaches “at least one operating
parameter.”
In any event, the written description indicates “at least one operating
parameter” encompasses Schmidt’s noise floor. The written description
explains that “the operational parameters determined for a given node could
include . . . parameters that may influence the quality and strength of signals
involved with communication with other nodes.” Spec. ¶ 43 (reference
numbers omitted). Schmidt teaches that a noise floor indicates the amount of
noise or interference on a communication channel and that the noise floor
can be used to select the communication channel with the least noise or
interference for future use. See, e.g., Schmidt ¶¶ 11, 25, 45–47, 53–54, Table
2, Fig. 4. Because Schmidt’s noise floor can be used to select a
communication channel with the least noise or interference for future use,
the noise floor “may influence the quality and strength of signals involved
with communication with other nodes” and thus is “at least one operating
parameter.”
The written description also indicates that Schmidt’s noise floor is
“based on” a quality of service metric. The written description explains that
disclosed invention can “retrieve quality of service (QOS) metrics,” Spec.
Appeal 2019-002272
Application 13/921,004

6
¶ 37, and that “[t]he QOS metric for a particular channel and particular
location generally indicates the quality of that channel at that location,”
Spec. ¶ 56. Schmidt discloses calculating a noise floor from a
communication channel’s “field strength,” which Schmidt explains is “also
referred to as signal strength.” Schmidt ¶ 41. Because signal strength can
“generally indicate[] the quality of that channel at that location” and Schmidt
teaches using signal strength to calculate a noise floor, Schmidt teaches that
a noise floor is “based on” a quality of service metric.
Finally, although Appellant asserts that Schmidt’s noise floor is not
“an optimization setting for processing data transmitted to or by the first
node,” Appellant has not persuasively explained why that is so. The
Examiner found that Schmidt’s noise floor teaches this element because
Schmidt discloses using noise floors to rank communication channels and
select the “best” communication channel, that is, the channel with the least
noise or interference. See Final Act. 4–5; Ans. 22. Appellant has not
meaningfully addressed this finding and therefore has not persuaded us that
the Examiner erred.
In the Reply Brief, Appellant argues for the first time that Schmidt’s
noise floors are not “for the first node” as required by the disputed
limitations. Reply Br. 4. Appellant forfeited this argument by failing to raise
it in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.41 (b)(2). Even if Appellant had
timely raised this argument, we would have found it unpersuasive. The
Examiner found that Schmidt’s noise floors are for a “radio device,” and that
this radio device teaches the “first node.” See Final Act. 4–5. Appellant does
not expressly dispute that the “first node” encompasses Schmidt’s radio
device, and we see no error in the Examiner’s finding that Schmidt’s noise
Appeal 2019-002272
Application 13/921,004

7
floors are for the radio device. Schmidt teaches transmitting noise floors to a
radio device so that the device can use the noise floors to select a
communication channel for future use. See Schmidt ¶¶ 25, 45–47, 53–54,
Table 2. The noise floors are thus “for the first node” as required by the
disputed limitations.
We have considered Appellant’s remaining arguments and find them
unpersuasive. For at least the above reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 1 under § 103.9
Claim 4
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites “wherein the at least one
operating parameter determined for the first node reflects a sensitivity value
with which signals received on the TWWS channel are to be processed by
the first node or a target signal-to-noise ratio with which signals are to be
transmitted by the first node over the available TWWS channel.” Appeal Br.
17. In the Appeal Brief, Appellant contends that the Examiner erroneously
found that Schmidt’s noise floor teaches at least one operating parameter
that reflects the recited target signal-to-noise ratio. See Appeal Br. 12–14. In
the Reply Brief, Appellant argues for the first time that that the Examiner
erroneously found that Schmidt’s noise floor teaches at least one operating
parameter that reflects the recited sensitivity value. See Reply Br. 5.
Appellant has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred. Even
assuming that Schmidt’s noise floor does not reflect the recited target signal-
to-noise ratio, claim 4 requires that the at least one operating parameter

9 If prosecution continues, the Examiner may determine whether claim 1
provides sufficient antecedent basis for “the available TVWS channel”
recited in the “determining” limitation.
Appeal 2019-002272
Application 13/921,004

8
reflect either the recited target signal-to-noise ratio or the recited sensitivity
value. Appeal Br. 17. In the Final Office Action, the Examiner found that
Schmidt’s noise floor reflects the recited sensitivity value. See Final Act.
12–13. Yet Appellant waited until the Reply Brief to argue that Schmidt’s
noise floor does not reflect this sensitivity value. Compare Appeal Br. 12–
14, with Reply Br. 5–6. Appellant forfeited this argument by raising it for
the first time in the Reply Brief. See 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37 (c)(1)(iv), 41.41
(b)(2). Appellant thus has not persuaded us that the Examiner erred in
finding that Schmidt teaches at least one operating parameter that reflects the
recited sensitivity value. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 4.10
Remaining Claims
Appellant has not provided separate, persuasive arguments for claims
2, 3, and 5–28. We thus sustain the Examiners’ rejections of these claims.
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 10, 12,
19–21, 23,
25–27
103 Schmidt, McCann
1, 3, 10,
12, 19–21,
23, 25–27

2, 11 103 Schmidt, McCann, Vuyyuru 2, 11
4, 6, 7, 9,
13, 15, 16,
18, 22
103 Schmidt, McCann, Ojard
4, 6, 7, 9,
13, 15, 16,
18, 22

10 Claim 4 recites “the TWWS channel” while claim 1 refers to “TVWS”
channels. See Appeal Br. 16–17. If prosecution continues, the Examiner may
consider whether there is adequate antecedent basis for the “the TWWS
channel” recited in claim 4.
Appeal 2019-002272
Application 13/921,004

9
Claims
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § References/Basis  Affirmed Reversed
5, 14 103 Schmidt, McCann, Azenko 5, 14
8, 17 103 Schmidt, McCann, Ojard, Bahl 8, 17
24 103 Schmidt, McCann, Bahl 24
Overall
Outcome 1–28

No period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this
appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED