11392366 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2014)

Ex Parte Bishop

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 12, 2014

11392366 (P.T.A.B. May. 12, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte DONALD M. BISHOP ____________ Appeal 2011-003816 Application 11/392,366 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, and BARBARA A. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judges. PARVIS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-25. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2011-003816 Application 11/392,366 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates to a wireless access point having multiple radio transceivers and multiple antennas that is operating by sending a beacon signal from several radio transceivers simultaneously. Spec. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A wireless access point comprising: a connection to a network; a plurality of antennas; a plurality of radio transceivers, each of said plurality of radio transceivers being configured to establish at least one two-way data communication session, and adapted to delay sending a transmission when another ongoing transmission is detected; an enclosure in which said plurality of radio transceivers are mounted; a controller adapted to send a synchronization signal to said plurality of radio transceivers substantially simultaneously, each of said radio transceivers being configured to receive said synchronization signal and transmit said beacon signal in response to said receiving said synchronization signal; wherein each of said plurality of radio transceivers being adapted to transmit a beacon signal at the same time and on the same channel. EVIDENCE CONSIDERED The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Csapo US 2003/0202497 Al Oct. 30, 2003 Lewis US 2005/0075118 Al Apr, 7, 2005 Funato US 2003/0145092 Al July 31, 2003 Sugaya US 2005/0255844 Al Nov. 17, 2005 Luglio US 2004/0192415 Al Sept. 30, 2004 Miller US 2005/0286486 Al Dec. 29, 2005 Appeal 2011-003816 Application 11/392,366 3 REJECTIONS Claims 1-5, 11, 15, 16, and 19-25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Csapo, Lewis, and Funato. Ans. 3-7. Claims 6-8, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Csapo, Lewis, Funato, and Sugaya. Ans. 7-9. Claims 9 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Csapo, Lewis, Funato, and Luglio. Ans. 9-10. Claims 12-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Csapo, Lewis, Funato, and Miller. Ans. 10-11. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER CSAPO, LEWIS, AND FUNATO The Examiner finds that Csapo discloses a wireless access point comprising a plurality of antennas and a plurality of transceivers configured as recited in independent claims 1 and 19, as well as a network connection and enclosure, as recited in claims 1 and 19. Ans. 4, 7. Although the Examiner acknowledges that Csapo does not refer to delaying sending a transmission when another ongoing transmission is detected, the Examiner cites to Lewis for these features. Id. Additionally, although the Examiner acknowledges that neither Csapo nor Lewis refers to a controller adapted to send a synchronization signal to the radio transceivers and the transceivers being configured to receive the synchronization signal and transmit a beacon signal in response, the Examiner cites to Funato for these features. Id. at 4- 5, 7. The Examiner also cites to Funato for teaching the radio transceivers being adapted to transmit a beacon signal at the same time and on the same channel. Id. Appeal 2011-003816 Application 11/392,366 4 Appellant argues that the combination of Lewis and Funato is improper because Lewis teaches away from simultaneous broadcasting of a beacon signal, whereas Funato requires simultaneous broadcasting of a beacon signal. Br. 12. ISSUE Under § 103, is the Examiner’s combining the teachings of Csapo, Lewis, and Funato supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether Lewis teaches away from the claimed invention.1 ANALYSIS Claims 1 and 19 We begin by noting that Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief are directed solely to the cited references’ combinability. Br. 12-14. In particular, Appellant argues that Funato describes two mechanisms by which beacon signals from two access points may be synchronized. Id. at 13-14. Appellant further argues that Lewis, on the other hand, describes mechanisms to avoid simultaneous beacon signals, such as delaying transmission if another reference signal is detected. Id. at 13. A reference teaches away when one of ordinary skill, upon reading the reference, would be discouraged from following the path set out in the reference, or would be led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by the inventor. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006) 1 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to determine whether the lack of antecedent basis for “said beacon signal” in lines 11 and 12 of claim 1 renders the claim indefinite under § 112(b). Appeal 2011-003816 Application 11/392,366 5 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). That is not the case here. Lewis merely describes alternate arrangements for transmitting beacon signals. Lewis ¶ 0009. In the excerpts of Lewis emphasized by Appellant, the language is permissive, not mandatory. Br. 13. Additionally, as noted by the Examiner, Lewis describes alternate embodiments in which both transmitters may transmit at the same time, albeit with a different interval or duration. Ans. 12. Nothing in the claims precludes such simultaneous transmission capability. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 19. Claims 2-18 and 20-25 We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 2-18 and 20-25, which were not separately argued by Appellant. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-25 under § 103. ORDER The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-25 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED