Ex Parte Archiable

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 30, 2014

10685074 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte DONALD PAUL ARCHIABLE
____________

Appeal 2012-002297
Application 10/685,074
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHN A. EVANS,
and MICHELLE N. WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WORMMEESTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
Final Rejection of claims 1–37 and 40–45. Claims 38 and 39 have been
withdrawn from consideration. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Appeal 2012-002297
Application 10/685,074

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s invention relates to the generation of a wireless network
with limited range. (See Spec. ¶¶ 23, 36, 48.) Exemplary independent claim
1 reads as follows:
1. A system configured to create a wireless network near a
surface, comprising:
an information receiving logic configured to receive an
information signal;
a driven element configured to transmit an outbound
information signal at a predetermined power and a
predetermined frequency that create a transmission zone that is
restrictively ranged proximate to at least a portion of the
surface; and
a transmission line configured to facilitate transferring a
first intermediate signal, from which the outbound information
signal is derived, from the information receiving logic to the
driven element.

Applied Prior Art
The Examiner relies on the following prior art in rejecting the claims
on appeal:
Hightower et al. (Hightower) US 5,276,277 Jan. 4, 1994
Novakov US 6,571,103 B1 May 27, 2003

Rejection
Claims 1–37 and 40–45 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Novakov and Hightower. (See Ans. 5–15.)

Appeal 2012-002297
Application 10/685,074

3
ANALYSIS
1. Claim interpretation
Appellant contends that the Examiner has erred in rejecting claim 1
because the Examiner fails to give any weight to the recited feature
“restrictively ranged proximate to at least a portion of a surface.” (See App.
Br. 20.) Independent claims 33, 37, and 45 recite similar features. (See id.
at 20, 31–32, 34.) In mapping the claim features to the cited prior art, the
Examiner addresses all the limitations recited in claim 1, including the
argued feature. (See Ans. 5–6.) Without further guidance from Appellant
on why the Examiner’s claim interpretation is erroneous, we are
unpersuaded that the Examiner “completely disregards” the argued feature.
(See App. Br. 20.)
2. Applied prior art
Appellant further contends that the Examiner has erred in rejecting
claim 1 because the applied prior art fails to disclose configuring a driven
element to restrict the range of a wireless network to the proximity of a
surface. (See App. Br. 21–26.) Independent claims 33, 37, and 45 recite
similar features. (See id. at 21, 31–32, 34.) We agree with the Examiner’s
findings and conclusion outlined in the discussion of the applied prior art
and the response to Appellant’s arguments.
In discussing Novakov, Appellant contends that the disclosed
techniques relate to a volume of space rather than a surface. (See id. at 21.)
The Examiner, however, does not rely on Novakov to show range restriction
with respect to a surface. (See Ans. 5, 15.) Rather, the Examiner relies on
Novakov for its teaching of range restriction through the configuration of a
driven element. (See Ans. 5, 15.) As the Examiner points out, Novakov
Appeal 2012-002297
Application 10/685,074

4
teaches configuring a transceiver to create a radio channel with an adjustable
range that can accommodate various environments, including an office
space. (See Ans. 5, 15; see also Novakov, col. 5, ll. 32–44.)
Acknowledging Novakov does not discuss any particular surface within the
office space, (see Ans. 5), the Examiner relies further on Hightower for its
teaching of confining electromagnetic signals within an office space
bounded by surfaces, such as walls, in order to promote secure
communications, (see Ans. 15–16; see also Hightower, col. 12, l. 54–col. 13,
l. 62). The Examiner points out that Hightower’s office space, being
bounded by surfaces, includes or covers each of those surfaces. (See Ans.
16.) Thus, the teachings in Hightower suggest modifying Novakov’s system
by adjusting the range of the radio channel such that the radio channel is
confined within an office space bounded by surfaces and therefore ranged
proximate to the bounding surfaces. (See Ans. 5–6, 16.) Accordingly, we
are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding that Novakov and
Hightower together teach or suggest configuring a driven element to restrict
the range of a wireless network to the proximity of a surface. (See Ans. 5–6,
15–16.)
Appellant presents additional arguments distinguishing Hightower
from Appellant’s invention. First, Appellant contends that Hightower does
not teach range restriction through the configuration of a powered element,
noting that using blocking surfaces is no substitution for configuring a
powered element to achieve range restriction. (See App. Br. 24.) As
discussed above, however, the Examiner relies on Novakov, not Hightower,
for its teaching of range restriction through the configuration of a powered
element (i.e., the transceiver).
Appeal 2012-002297
Application 10/685,074

5
Second, Appellant contends that Hightower relates to whether a
wireless network passes through a surface rather than how far away from the
surface the wireless network radiates. (See App. Br. 24.) According to
Appellant, Hightower’s blocking surfaces are unrelated to restricting the
range of a network to the proximity of a surface. (See App. Br. 25.) As
discussed above, Hightower’s surfaces bound a space in which signals are
confined to propagate. These signals are therefore ranged to be proximate to
each of the bounding surfaces.
Finally, Appellant contends that Hightower teaches away from
Appellant’s invention because Hightower’s signal fills the entire bounded
space and is of uniform strength. (See App. Br. 25–26.) As the Examiner
notes, however, claim 1 does not recite that the transmission zone is ranged
exclusively on the surface. (See Ans. 16.) We further note that claim 1 also
does not recite whether the signal is uniform. (See App. Br. 27.) Claim 1
requires simply that a transmission zone is restrictively ranged proximate to
at least a portion of a surface. Even though Hightower’s signal is of uniform
strength and fills an entire bounded space, the signal is still considered as
being restrictively ranged proximate to a bounding surface of that space.
In view of the foregoing, we are unpersuaded of error in the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. Appellant’s arguments relate only to the
independent claims, allowing the dependent claims to stand or fall with the
independent claims. We therefore sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of
claims 1–37 and 40–45.

Appeal 2012-002297
Application 10/685,074

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–37 and 40–45 is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv)(2011).

AFFIRMED

cdc