Apple Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 4, 2021

2021002438 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 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.
16/113,659 08/27/2018 Christiaan A. Hartman 1888-22903 1993
81310 7590 05/04/2021
Kowert Hood Munyon Rankin & Goetzel (Apple)
1120 S. Capital of Texas Hwy
Building 2, Suite 300
Austin, TX 78746
EXAMINER
PATEL, HARDIKKUMAR D
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/04/2021 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):
patent_docketing@intprop.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte CHRISTIAAN A. HARTMAN, GUOQING LI, YONG LIU,
SU KHIONG YONG, and JARKKO L. KNECKT
________________

Appeal 2021-002438
Application 16/113,659
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and
PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7 and 9–21, which constitute all of
the pending claims. Appeal Br. 3. Claim 8 is canceled. Id. at 19. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 “Appellant” refers to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant
identifies the real party in interest as Apple, Inc. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal 2021-002438
Application 16/113,659
2

SUMMARY OF THE DISCLOSURE
Appellant’s claimed subject matter relates to “an electronic device
(such as an access point) [that] may receive a setup request associated with
the recipient electronic device” specifying “a group address for which the
recipient electronic device wants to receive associated frames and a
proposed transmission interval.” Abstract. Based on this setup request, “the
electronic device may provide a wake-up frame for the recipient electronic
device.” Id.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAIM
(disputed and key limitations emphasized and bracketing added)
1. An electronic device, comprising:
a node configured to communicatively couple to an antenna;
and
an interface circuit, communicatively coupled to the node,
configured to communicate with a recipient electronic device,
and configured to:
[1] receive, from the node, a wake-up radio (WUR)-setup
request associated with the recipient electronic device,
[2] wherein the WUR-setup request specifies a group
address for which the recipient electronic device wants to
receive associated frames and a proposed transmission
interval;
determine a transmission schedule based at least in part
on the proposed transmission interval; and
provide, to the node, a wake-up frame intended for the
recipient electronic device, wherein the wake-up frame
comprises an identifier of an aggregated group, the
identifier comprising the group address for which a
group-addressed frame will subsequently be transmitted
by the electronic device,
Appeal 2021-002438
Application 16/113,659
3

wherein the wake-up frame is provided at a transmission
time based at least in part on the transmission schedule,
and
wherein the electronic device comprises an access point.
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies on the following references:
Name Reference Date
Fang et al. (“Fang”) US 2017/0332327 A1 Nov. 16, 2017
Patil et al. (“Patil”) US 2018/0302923 A1 Oct. 18, 2018
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejects claims 1–7 and 9–21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Fang and Patil. Final Act. 3–11.
ADOPTION OF EXAMINER’S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
We agree with and adopt as our own the Examiner’s findings as set
forth in the Answer and in the Final Action from which this appeal was
taken, and we concur with the Examiner’s conclusions. We have considered
Appellant’s arguments, but we do not find them persuasive of error. We
provide the following explanation for emphasis.
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1 as obvious, the Examiner finds that Fang’s wake-
up transmitter capable access point, by receiving an association request
message with wake-up receiver capability information, teaches recitation
[1], “receiv[ing], from the node, a wake-up radio (WUR)-setup request
associated with the recipient electronic device.” Final Act. 3 (citing Fang
¶ 82, Fig. 7). The Examiner finds that Patil’s trigger frame containing
association identifiers based on a group association identifier mapping and
random access parameter set elements that indicate orthogonal frequency-
division multiple access contention window values teach or suggest
Appeal 2021-002438
Application 16/113,659
4

modifying Fang’s wake-up receiver capability information to specify “a
group address for which the recipient electronic device wants to receive
associated frames and a proposed transmission interval” in the manner of
recitation [2]. Id. at 5 (citing Patil ¶¶ 6, 41, 64); Ans. 13. The Examiner
concludes that this modification would have been obvious to “increase
medium utilization and efficiency.” Final Act. 5 (citing Patil ¶ 138).
Appellant submits the Examiner properly concedes that Fang fails to
teach recitation [2] (Appeal Br. 13), but that the Examiner erroneously relies
on Patil to cure the acknowledged deficiency of Fang (id. at 14).
Specifically, Appellant argues that the trigger frame of Patil “is provided by
an access point and is received by a client or a station.” Id. Appellant
argues this shows error in the Examiner’s rejection because claim 1
“unambiguously recites that [the] recipient electronic device specifies the
group address and transmission interval.” Id.; Reply Br. 3. Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive because it is not commensurate with the scope of
the claimed invention.
Claim 1, recitation [1], recites receiving a wake-up radio setup request
associated with a recipient electronic device, while recitation [2] recites that
the request specifies a group address for which the recipient electronic
device wants to receive associated frames. Appellant argues Patil’s trigger
frame is provided by an access point and not by a recipient electronic
device. Appeal Br. 14. Thus, Appellant relies on there being a line
distinguishing a recipient electronic device from an access point.
The Specification notes that in its disclosure “electronic devices 110
are sometimes referred to as ‘recipient electronic devices.’” Spec. ¶ 67. The
Specification further notes that “electronic devices 110 and access point 112
can include (or can be included within) any electronic devices with
Appeal 2021-002438
Application 16/113,659
5

networking subsystems that enable electronic devices 110 and access point
112, respectively, to wirelessly communicate with another electronic
device.” Id. ¶ 68 (emphasis added). And the Specification illustrates “a block
diagram of an electronic device 900 (which may be a cellular telephone, an
access point, another electronic device, etc.).” Id. ¶ 147 (emphasis added).
These disclosures blur whatever line between access points and
recipient electronic devices Appellant relies on in arguing the Examiner
erred in relying on Patil to cure the acknowledged deficiency of Fang.
Moreover, Appellant does not identify any recitation that precludes the
recipient electronic device from being an access point. Thus, given the
broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification, the claim
“recipient electronic device” encompasses an access point. Therefore,
Appellant’s argument that the trigger frame of Patil is provided by an access
point and not by a recipient electronic device (Appeal Br. 14) fails to show
error in the Examiner’s reliance on Patil to teach or suggest recitation [2]
(Final Act. 5).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection under
35 U.S.C. § 103 of claim 1, and claims 2–7 and 9–21, which Appellant does
not argue separately. Appeal Br. 15.
Appeal 2021-002438
Application 16/113,659
6

CONCLUSION
Claim(s)
Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–7, 9–21 103 Fang, Patil 1–7, 9–21
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking 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