Apple Inc.Download PDFPatent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 4, 20212021002438 (P.T.A.B. May. 4, 2021) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation