Ex Parte Capomaggio

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 28, 2016

12671320 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 28, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/671,320 01129/2010
22511 7590 09/30/2016
OSHA LIANG LLP,
TWO HOUSTON CENTER
909 FANNIN, SUITE 3500
HOUSTON, TX 77010
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Gregory Capomaggio
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
096691124001 1010
EXAMINER
CEHIC, KENAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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):
docketing@oshaliang.com
hathaway@oshaliang.com
escobedo@oshaliang.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte GREGORY CAPOMAGGIO
Appeal2014-009205
Application 12/671,320
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
LINZY T. McCARTNEY, Administrative Patent Judges.
HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-10, which constitute all the claims
pending in this application. Final Act. 1; Reply Br. 2. 1 We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
1 We refer to Appellant's Specification (Substitute Specification) ("Spec.")
filed Jan. 29, 2010 (claiming benefit ofEPO 07290972, filed Aug. 1, 2007);
Appeal Brief ("App. Br.") filed May 5, 2014; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.")
filed Aug. 25, 2014. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.")
mailed June 24, 2014, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final
Act.") mailed Nov. 7, 2013.
Appeal2014-009205
Application 12/671,320
Appellant's Invention
The invention at issue on appeal concerns communication devices and
methods of using connections in wireless networks associated with services
offering different levels of security. The communication device includes a
communication interface configured with a physical channel to exchange
radio messages on a wireless network and configured to multiplex at least
two logical channels in the physical channel. The communication device
also includes a central processing unit (CPU) connected to the
communication interface, and the CPU in conjunction with the
communication interface provide services (at least two) on the wireless
network, which are associated with the logical channels. The CPU is further
configured to define a transmission parameter for each service and transmit
the transmission parameter to the communication interface, and the
communication interface is further configured to adjust a parameter of the
physical channel depending on the transmission parameter for the particular
service associated with the particular logical channel. Spec. i1i1 0001, l 007-
1009; Abstract.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 5, reproduced below, further illustrates the
invention:
5. A communication device comprising:
a radio frequency communication interface with at least
one physical channel to exchange radio messages on a wireless
network and configured to multiplex at least two logical channels
in the said physical channel, and
a central processing unit connected to the communication
interface, the central processing unit cooperating with the
radiofrequency communication interface to provide at least two
2
Appeal2014-009205
Application 12/671,320
services on the wireless network, each of the at least two services
being associated with a distinct logical channel of the at least two
logical channels of the radio frequency communication interface,
the central processing unit configured to:
define at least one transmission parameter specific to each
service of the at least two services and transmit the transmission
parameter to the radiofrequency communication interface,
wherein the transmission parameter limits a transmission range
for services using confidential data,
wherein the radio frequency communication interface is
configured to adjust at least one parameter of the at least one
physical channel depending on the transmission parameter
specific to the service associated with the logical channel.
Rejections on Appeal
1. The Examiner rejects claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lohr et al. (US 2007 /0121542 Al; published May 31,
2007) ("Lohr") and Hassan et al. (US 7,720,018 B2; issued May 18, 2010)
("Hassan").
2. The Examiner rejects claims 1 and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Lohr, Raissinia et al. (US 7,065,378 Bl; issued
June 20, 2006) ("Raissinia"), and Hassan.
3. The Examiner rejects claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lohr, Raissinia, Hassan, and Kwak et al. (US
2006/0286994 Al; published Dec. 21, 2006) ("Kwak").
4. The Examiner rejects claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lohr, Raissinia, Hassan, and Mohebbi et al. (US
2003/0186653 Al; published Oct. 2, 2003) ("Mohebbi").
5. The Examiner rejects claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lohr, Raissinia, Hassan, and Walton et al. (US
3
Appeal2014-009205
Application 12/671,320
2008/0285670 Al; published Nov. 20, 2008 (claiming benefit of US
60/421,309, filed on Oct. 25, 2002)) ("Walton").
6. The Examiner rejects claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lohr, Hassan, and Kwak.
7. The Examiner rejects claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lohr, Hassan, and Mohebbi.
8. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lohr, Hassan, and Walton.
9. The Examiner rejects claim 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Lohr, Hassan, and Nibe (US 2008/0064386 Al; published
Mar. 13, 2008).
ISSUE
Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellant's
contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the dispositive
issue before us follows:
Does the Examiner err in combining the prior art references (Lohr and
Hassan, or Lohr, Raissinia, and Hassan) and concluding that the
combinations would have collectively taught or suggested "services on the
wireless network" "each ... being associated with a distinct logical channel
of ... the radiofrequency communication interface, the central processing
unit configured to: define at least one transmission parameter specific to
each service" "and transmit the transmission parameter to the radiofrequency
communication interface," and "wherein the radio frequency communication
interface is configured to adjust at least one parameter of the at least one
physical channel depending on the transmission parameter specific to the
4
Appeal2014-009205
Application 12/671,320
service associated with the logical channel" within the meaning of claim 5
and the commensurate limitations recited in Appellant's claims 1 and 1 O?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends that the Examiner improperly combined Lohr,
Raissinia, and Hassan because the references are non-analogous and one of
ordinary skill in the art "would not have been led to combine the disparate
teachings" (App. Br. 10) of the references. App. Br. 8-10; Reply Br. 5.
Appellant further contends that Lohr, Raissinia, and Hassan do not teach the
disputed features of independent claim 5 (App. Br. 11-16; Reply Br. 5-7)
and also claims 1and10 (App. Br. 16-21). Specifically, Appellant contends
that "Lohr, Hassan, and Raissinia are each directed to completely distinct
wireless technologies" (Reply Br. 5) and "Lohr is directed to a system in
which data is sorted into priority queues" but "is completely silent with
regard to assigning a transmission parameter to individual services" (Reply
Br. 6). Appellant further contends that Hassan teaches a contradictory
power level adjustment scheme (App. Br. 14--15):
Hassan operates by detecting, at the device level, the proximity
and then iterating through power settings until an appropriate
power level is achieved. To the contrary, the claimed invention
requires that there be a predetermined transmission parameter at
the service level that determines the transmission power level of
the physical channel when that service is operating
App. Br. 15.
Appellant persuades us of error in the obviousness rejection of claim 5
for essentially the reasons set forth by Appellant in the Briefs. App. Br. 11-
16; Reply Br. 5-7. Appellant's claim 5 requires a CPU and communication
interface providing services on a wireless network where each service is
5
Appeal2014-009205
Application 12/671,320
associated with a distinct logical channel of the communication interface.
Each service has a specified transmission parameter utilized by the
communication interface to adjust (a different parameter of) the physical
channel. Contrary to the Examiner's findings (Final Act. 2-5; Ans. 6-12),
Lohr describes distinct embodiments where content is scheduled over a
physical layer to meet QoS requirements - the priority queues (see Lohr i-fi-1
118-120, 144) and in a separate embodiment (see Lohr i-f 152) transmission
power is increased to meet QoS requirements (see Lohr i-fi-f 152-154). Lohr
is silent with respect specifying a transmission parameter for individual
services, which is utilized to adjust the physical channel. Further, as pointed
out by Appellant (supra), Hassan adjusts power at a device rather than a
service level. See Hassan. col. 2, 11. 3-7.
Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that
the Examiner erred in finding Lohr and Hassan teach the disputed limitations
of Appellant's claim 5. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
obviousness rejection of claim 5 over Lohr and Hassan.
The§ 103 Rejections of Claims 6 -9
With respect to the obviousness rejections of dependent claims 6-9,
rejected as obvious over Lohr and Hassan as well as Kwak, Mohebbi,
Walton and Nibe, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections for the
same reasons set forth with respect to claim 5 (supra). Claims 6-9 depend
on claim 5 and the Examiner improperly cites Lohr as teaching the recited
"transmission parameter specific to each service" and the "communication
interface configured to adjust ... the ... physical channel depending on the
transmission parameter specific to the service associated with the logical
6
Appeal2014-009205
Application 12/671,320
channel" (claim 5). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 6-9.
The§ 103 Rejections of Claims 1--4and10
With respect to the obviousness rejections of independent claims 1
and 10 (rejected as obvious over Lohr, Raissinia, and Hassan) and dependent
claims 2--4 (rejected as obvious over Lohr, Raissinia, and Hassan as well as
Kwak, Mohebbi, Walton), we reverse the Examiner's obviousness rejections
for the same reasons set forth with respect to claim 5 (supra). The Examiner
improperly cites Lohr as teaching the recited "transmission parameter
specific to each service" and adjusting the "physical channel depending on
the transmission parameter specific to the service associated with the logical
channel" (claim 5). Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's obviousness
rejections of claims 1--4 and 10.
CONCLUSION
Appellant has shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 1-10.
REVERSED
7