Ex Parte Bowes

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Aug 14, 2008

09709532 (B.P.A.I. Aug. 14, 2008)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte MICHAEL J. BOWES
____________________

Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,5321
Technology Center 2600
____________________

Decided: August 14, 2008
____________________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, SCOTT R. BOALICK, and MARC S. HOFF,
Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, and 4-38.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for controlling data flow
across a link. “[T]he method includes the steps of transmitting a packet

1 Application filed November 13, 2000. The real party in interest is
Broadcom Corporation.
2 Claim 3 has been cancelled.
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

request message from a first station to a second station, then determining if
the packet request message is valid. A request acknowledge message is
transmitted from the second station to the first station, and it is then
determined [if] the request acknowledge message is valid. The packet
request message and the request acknowledge message each includes a
control bit string, an identification bit string, and at least one parity bit”
(Spec. 1).
Claim 1 is exemplary:
1. A method for controlling data flow across a link, said method
comprising the steps of:
transmitting a packet request message from a first station to a second
station;
determining if the packet request message is valid;
transmitting a request acknowledge message from the second station
to the first station;
determining if the request acknowledge message is valid,
wherein said step of transmitting a packet request message further
comprises the step of generating the packet request message, the step of
generating the packet request message comprising generating a request non-
payload bit string corresponding to a pre-programmed packet request
register,
wherein the packet request message and the request acknowledge
message each include a control bit string, an identification bit string, and at
least one parity bit, and
wherein said control bit string identifies whether a frame is a control
frame or a data frame and said identification bit string correlates the packet
request message with a corresponding request acknowledge message.

The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Beuk US 5,774,673 Jun. 30, 1998
2
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

Meyer US 6,611,495 B1 Aug. 26, 2003
(filed Jun. 7, 1999)

Claims 1, 2, 4-12, 14, and 16-38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being anticipated by Beuk.
Claims 13 and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Beuk in view of Meyer.
Appellant contends that Beuk does not teach generating a request non-
payload bit string corresponding to a pre-programmed packet request
register, as recited in claim 1 (App. Br. 7), nor configuring first and second
identification numbers to correlate a packet request message with a
corresponding request acknowledge message, as recited in claims 14 and 28
(App. Br. 13, 21).
Rather than repeat the arguments of the Appellant or the Examiner,
we make reference to the Brief (filed December 13, 2006), the Answer
(mailed January 31, 2007), and the Reply Brief (filed March 21, 2007) for
their respective details.
ISSUE
There are two principal issues in the appeal before us.
The first issue is whether the Examiner erred in holding that Beuk
teaches generating a request non-payload bit string corresponding to a pre-
programmed packet request register, as required by claim 1.
The second issue is whether the Examiner erred in holding that Beuk
teaches that the first identification number and the second identification
number are configured to correlate the packet request message with a
3
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

corresponding request acknowledge message, as required by claims 14 and
28.
FINDINGS OF FACT
The following Findings of Fact (FF) are shown by a preponderance of
the evidence.
The Invention
1. According to Appellant, he has invented a method for
controlling data flow across a link. “[T]he method includes the steps of
transmitting a packet request message from a first station to a second station,
then determining [if] the packet request message is valid. A request
acknowledge message is transmitted from the second station to the first
station, and it is then determined if the request acknowledge message is
valid. The packet request message and the request acknowledge message
each include a control bit string, an identification bit string, and at least one
parity bit” (Spec. 1).
Beuk
2. Beuk teaches a system “in which any apparatus (of a plurality)
can establish exclusive bi-directional communication between a selected
local application and an application in one or more other apparatuses” (col.
1, ll. 56-60).
3. Each apparatus 100, 101 capable of wireless communication
teaches a message sending means (200), message receiving means (210),
acknowledgement sending means (220), and acknowledgement receiving
means (230) (Fig. 2).
4
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

4. The message sending means of one apparatus is in
communication with the message receiving means of the other, and vice
versa; likewise, the acknowledgement sending means of one apparatus is in
communication with the acknowledgement receiving means of the other, and
vice versa (Fig. 2)
5. The TYPE field taught by Beuk includes an “A/M” field, used
to distinguish between an acknowledgement frame and a message frame
(Fig. 3; col. 12, ll. 36-40).
6. An acknowledgement sending means of a given apparatus will
only transmit an acknowledgement frame if the message receiving means
correctly receives a group frame (col. 12, ll. 15-19).
7. Beuk teaches that the original apparatus compares the channels
specified in both frames and discards the acknowledgement frame if the
channels do not match, filtering out acknowledgement frames intended for
other apparatuses (col. 4, ll. 43-48).

Meyer
8. Meyer provides a retransmission-based error recovery
procedure that facilitates improved data transfer rates in comparison to
known retransmission timer error recovery procedures (col. 3, ll. 2-5).
Dictionary definition of “correlate”
9. “Correlate” is defined as “to place in or bring into mutual or
reciprocal relation; establish in orderly connection.” Random House
College Dictionary 301 (Revised ed. 1984).
5
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Anticipation is established when a single prior art reference discloses
expressly or under the principles of inherency each and every limitation of
the claimed invention. Atlas Powder Co. v. IRECO, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342,
1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999); In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 2 and 4-12
Appellant argues that Beuk does not teach generating a request non-
payload bit string corresponding to a pre-programmed packet request
register, as claim 1 requires (App. Br. 7). In the Examiner’s view, the “non-
payload bit string corresponding to a pre-programmed packet request
register” is met in Beuk by the TYPE fields of frames 610 and 630 (Final
Rej. 3; Beuk Fig. 3). The TYPE field taught by Beuk includes an “A/M”
field, used to distinguish between an acknowledgement frame and a message
frame (FF 5). According to the Examiner, each frame then corresponds to
either a message receiving means 210 (if the TYPE field indicates a
message) or an acknowledgement receiving means 230 (if the TYPE field
indicates an acknowledgement); therefore, the TYPE field provides a
correspondence with a particular message receiving means (Ans. 17).
With reference to Figure 2 of Beuk, each apparatus 100, 101 capable
of wireless communication teaches a message sending means (200), message
receiving means (210), acknowledgement sending means (220), and
acknowledgement receiving means (230) (FF 3). For the TYPE register of
Beuk to “correspond” to a “pre-programmed packet request register” (Beuk
6
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

Fig. 2, 210 or 230) as claim 1 requires, there would need to be something in
the system of Beuk that examines the contents of the TYPE field to
determine whether the particular frame is an acknowledgement frame or a
message frame, and to route the frame to the appropriate “register” 210 or
230 based on the result of such a determination. However, Beuk contains no
teaching that the TYPE field is examined, and a data frame routed to either
the message receiving means or the acknowledgement receiving means (210,
230) as a result of such examination. On the contrary, the message sending
means of one apparatus is in communication with the message receiving
means of the other, and vice versa; likewise, the acknowledgement sending
means of one apparatus is in communication with the acknowledgement
receiving means of the other, and vice versa (FF 4). An acknowledgement
sending means of a given apparatus will only transmit an acknowledgement
frame if the message receiving means correctly receives a group frame (FF
6).
Because Beuk does not teach examining the A/M sub-field of the
TYPE field and then routing an incoming frame to either the
acknowledgement receiving means or message receiving means, we do not
agree with the Examiner that the TYPE field of Beuk constitutes a request
non-payload bit string corresponding to a pre-programmed packet request
register. Beuk therefore does not teach all the elements of claim 1.3 We

3 Because we find that Beuk does not teach the claimed non-payload bit
string, we need not reach Appellant’s argument that Beuk does not teach that
the packet request message and request acknowledgement message each
include a control bit string, an identification bit string, and at least one parity
bit, as recited in claim 1 (see App. Br. 7).
7
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

therefore find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and of claims 2
and 4-12 dependent from claim 1, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e).
Claims 14 and 16-38
With respect to independent claims 14 and 28, Appellant argues that
Beuk does not disclose or suggest that the first identification number and the
second identification number are configured to correlate the packet request
message with a corresponding request acknowledge message (App. Br. 13,
21). In Appellant’s view, the teaching in Beuk that the channel field of group
frame 630 is copied to the channel field of acknowledgement frame 640
does not meet the claimed correlation of the packet request message with a
corresponding request acknowledgement message, because “copying a first
identification number to another location does not produce a second
identification number” (App. Br. 14, 22), and that “copying a field to
another field is not the same as correlating a request message with an
acknowledgement message” (App. Br. 14-15, 22).
We are not persuaded by Appellant’s position. According to the
Examiner, Beuk teaches
a receiving apparatus, which receives a group frame, specifying
a specific communication channel, transmits in response an
acknowledgement frame, which specifies the same
communication channel …. Then the apparatus, which sent out
the original group frame and now receives the
acknowledgement frame, can compare the channels specified in
both frames (determine whether the fields match) in order to
filter out acknowledgements that are intended for other
apparatuses. It is held that this copying of the channel field
from the request message to the acknowledgement message
provides a correlation between these two messages.

8
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

Ans. 18-19; see FF B3, B4. We agree with the Examiner that Beuk’s
teaching of copying of the channel field corresponds to the claimed
“correlation.” Appellant’s Specification (see p. 108) does not provide an
application-specific definition of “correlate.” According to the dictionary
definition of “correlate,” i.e. “to place in or bring into mutual or reciprocal
relation; establish in orderly connection,” (FF 9), Beuk’s copying of the
channel field from the request message to the acknowledgement message is
the very essence of “correlation.” Causing the two fields to be identical
certainly corresponds to bringing them into mutual or reciprocal relation.
Appellant’s argument that copying a first identification number to
another location does not produce a second identification number is also
unpersuasive. Nothing in the claims requires the second identification
number to be different from the first identification number.
Finally, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that if the
channel field is merely copied to a different location, there would be no need
to determine if the second identification number matches the first
identification number (App. Br. 14). First, Beuk teaches that the original
apparatus compares the channels specified in both frames and discards the
acknowledgement frame if the channels do not match, filtering out
acknowledgement frames intended for other apparatuses (FF 7). Second,
given that Beuk meets the “determining” and “correlating” limitations,
whether there would be “no need” to perform the “determining” step is not a
relevant inquiry under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
9
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

Because we find that Beuk teaches every limitation of claims 14 and
28, we do not find error in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 14 and 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
According to Appellant, claims 16-27 are alleged to be patentable for
the same reasons claim 14 is patentable, and claims 29-38 are alleged to be
patentable for the same reasons claim 28 is patentable, with no further
arguments presented. Because we sustain the rejections of claims 14 and 28,
then, we also sustain the rejections of claims 16-27 and 29-38.
Claim 13
Appellant argues for the patentability of claim 13, dependent on claim
1, because the Meyer reference fails to cure the deficiencies in Beuk with
respect to claim 1 (App. Br. 27). We agree with the Appellant, supra, that
Beuk fails to anticipate claim 1. We further agree that Meyer fails to cure the
deficiencies of the Beuk reference. We therefore find error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Claim 15
Appellant argues for the patentability of claim 15, dependent on claim
14, only in that the Meyer reference, like the Beuk reference, fails to
disclose or suggest that the first identification number and second
identification number are configured to correlate the packet request message
with a corresponding request acknowledge message, as recited in claim 14
(App. Br. 27-28). We do not find Appellant’s argument persuasive, because
with reference to claim 14 supra, we find that Beuk does teach that the first
identification number and second identification number are configured to
correlate the packet request message with a corresponding request
10
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

acknowledge message. We therefore do not find error in the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
We conclude that the Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claims 14-38. We conclude that the Appellant has shown
that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 2, and 4-13. On the record
before us, claims 1 2, and 4-13 have not been shown to be unpatentable.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 14-38 is affirmed. The Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4-13 is reversed.
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).

11
Appeal 2008-0053
Application 09/709,532

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

eld

SQUIRE, SANDERS & DEMPSEY L.L.P.
8000 TOWERS CRESCENT DRIVE
14TH FLOOR
VIENNA, VA 22182-6212
12