Ex Parte Chintalapudi et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 25, 201512428021 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 25, 2015) 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. 12/428,021 04/22/2009 Krishna Kant Chintalapudi 1576-1537 8101 10800 7590 02/25/2015 Maginot, Moore & Beck LLP One Indiana Square, Suite 2200 Indianapolis, IN 46204 EXAMINER LOO, JUVENA W ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/25/2015 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte KRISHNA KANT CHINTALAPUDI and LAKSHMI VENKATRAMAN ____________ Appeal 2012-007387 Application 12/428,021 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CAROLYN D. THOMAS, and DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judges. THOMAS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner finally rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4–21, all the claims pending in the application. Claim 3 is cancelled. We have jurisdiction over the appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM-IN-PART. The present invention relates generally to wirelessly delivering data packets. Spec. ¶ 2. Appeal 2012-007387 Application 12/428,021 2 Claims 1, 8, and 15 are illustrative: 1. A wireless data transmission method, comprising: providing a plurality of radio frequency transmitters; providing a receiver to receive transmissions from the transmitters; defining a data format including a plurality of transmission time slots; causing each of the transmitters to independently select one of the time slots; and using the transmitters to transmit the transmissions to the receiver in the independently selected time slots, wherein, if at least two of the transmitters conflict by transmitting the transmissions in a same one of the independently selected time slots, the method comprises the further step of using the conflicting transmitters to re- transmit the transmissions to the receiver. 8. A wireless data transmission method, comprising: providing a plurality of radio frequency transmitters; providing a plurality of receivers to receive transmissions from the transmitters; configuring each of the receivers to receive the transmissions on a respective one of a plurality of frequency channels; defining a data format including a plurality of transmission time slots; causing each of the transmitters to independently select one of the time slots and one of the frequency channels; and using the transmitters to transmit the transmissions to the receiver in the independently selected time slots and the independently selected frequency channels. 15. A data transmission method, comprising: wirelessly transmitting data packets from a plurality of sensors to a receiver at substantially random times; wirelessly transmitting signals to the sensors, the signals being indicative of whether data portions of individual ones of the data packets were received during overlapping time periods; and Appeal 2012-007387 Application 12/428,021 3 repeating the step of wirelessly transmitting data packets at substantially random times for ones of the sensors whose data portions were transmitted during the overlapping time periods. Appellants appeal the following rejections: R1. Claims 1, 2, 4–7, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Manjeshwar (US 2007/0076745 A1, Apr. 5, 2007); R2. Claims 8, 9, and 11–13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Young (US 5,719,868, Feb. 17, 1998); R3. Claims 10 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Young and Shahaf (US 6,490,645 B1, Dec. 3, 2002); and R4. Claims 18–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Manjeshwar and Shahaf. Claim Groupings Based on Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief, we will decide the appeal on the basis of claims, 1, 8, and 15 as set forth below. See 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ANALYSIS Rejection of claims 1, 2, and 4–7 under § 102(b) over Manjeshwar Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding that Manjeshwar discloses each of the transmitters independently selects one of the time slots, as set forth in claim 1? Appellants contend “that paragraphs [0031] and [0034] are completely silent as to nodes transmitting independently of each other . . . . Rather, a Appeal 2012-007387 Application 12/428,021 4 transmitter first checks whether another transmitter is transmitting during a time slot before selecting the time slot” (App. Br. 10). The Examiner finds that Manjeshwar discloses the aforementioned limitations in that Manjeshwar discloses transmitting a message without performing a Carrier Sense Multiple Access (CSMA) protocol exchange and that “paragraph [31] states that ‘the sender nodes do not have knowledge about another sender node’s transmissions’” (Ans. 19). We agree with the Examiner. We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. Specifically, Manjeshwar discloses a method “for delivering a message from one or more sender nodes to a receiver node . . . . [in which] the sender nodes do not have knowledge about another sender node’s transmissions” (¶ 31). Manjeshwar further discloses that “upon the occurrence of an event, a message is generated at the sender node . . . . The sender node transmits the message on the main network frequency in the first time slot following the event” (¶ 34). We find a sender node having no knowledge about another sender node’s transmission is indicative of an independent relationship between the sender nodes. Furthermore, Appellants have not identified, nor can we find, where Manjeshwar discloses a transmitter first checks whether another transmitter is transmitting during a time slot before selecting the time slot. Instead, Manjeshwar discloses “[t]o avoid collision with one another, the sender node chooses a random number, and based on the random number chooses a time slot to transmit the messages” (¶ 39). In other words, Appeal 2012-007387 Application 12/428,021 5 Manjeshwar’s selection of a time slot is based on a random number selection, not dependent upon what another transmitter is doing. Furthermore, we note that claim 1 does not define what the transmitters are independently selecting from, e.g., independent from each other transmitter’s selection, from a user input, from some type of stimulus, etc. In other words, claim 1 reads on any type of independent selection. As noted supra, Manjeshwar discloses a transmitter choosing a time slot based on a random number, not on what the other transmitters are doing. For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Manjeshwar discloses the argued limitation, as recited in independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2 and 4–7, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4–7 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Manjeshwar. Rejection of claims 15–17 under § 102(b) over Manjeshwar Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding that Manjeshwar discloses transmitting data packets at substantially random times, as set forth in claim 15? Appellants contend that “[b]ecause the sender nodes [in Manjeshwar] are time synchronized such that they transmit only at the beginning of each time slot, the transmissions do not occur at substantially random times, as required by claim 15” (App. Br. 12). The Examiner finds in Manjeshwar “[w]hen an event occurs (such as an alarm condition), a sender node generates a message and transmit [sic] it in the first time slot following the event. The occurrence of the event, such Appeal 2012-007387 Application 12/428,021 6 as an alarm, can happen anytime during the operation of the network and is ‘random’ or ‘un-planned’” (Ans. 21). We agree with the Examiner. In essence, the Examiner concludes, and we agree, that since the occurrences of Manjeshwar’s events are random, it follows that the transmission times of data which follow such events are random. The mere fact the Manjeshwar’s sender nodes transmit at the beginning of each time slot (see ¶ 31) does not dismiss the fact that the actual times when transmission occurs is substantially random. For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Manjeshwar discloses the argued limitation, as recited in independent claim 15 and dependent claims 16 and 17, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 15–17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Manjeshwar. Rejection of claims 8 and 9 under § 102(b) over Young Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding that Young discloses causing each of the transmitters to independently select one of the time slots and one of the frequency channels, as set forth in claim 8? Appellants contend “[t]he nodes of Young do not independently select either time slots or frequency channels . . . . each node selects a time slot and frequency channel dependent upon what time slots and frequency channels have been previously selected by neighboring nodes” (App. Br. 13). The Examiner finds that in Young “a node/transmitter needing a slot- frequency pair assignment can do so by checking the table and assigns itself to an available pair and announces its selection to other nodes in a control packet” (Ans. 24). We agree with the Examiner. Appeal 2012-007387 Application 12/428,021 7 We refer to, rely on, and adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusions set forth in the Answer. Our discussions here will be limited to the following points of emphasis. Here, Young discloses “storing a table of possible communication frequencies and time slots between nodes; and announcing and transmitting during a specific time slot, a selected transmit frequency and slot from a first node to a second node and all neighboring nodes of the first node” (Abstract). In other words, as noted by the Examiner, in Young each node selects its slot-frequency pair based on the information in a table. We find that such a selection can be construed as an independent selection because it is not controlled by another node, i.e., another node designating the selection, but is instead an independent selection based on possible communication time slots and frequencies. We also find that Appellants have not presented separate patentability arguments or have reiterated substantially the same arguments as those previously discussed for patentability of claim 8 above for claims 9 and 12 (see App. Br. 14), thus, claims 9 and 12 fall therewith. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). For at least these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding that Young discloses the argued limitation, as recited in independent claim 8 and dependent claim 9, not separately argued. Therefore, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Young. Rejection of claims 11–13 under § 102(b) over Young Issue 4: Did the Examiner err in finding that Young discloses causing each of the conflicting transmitters to at least one of independently re-select Appeal 2012-007387 Application 12/428,021 8 one of the time slots and independently re-select one of the frequency channels, as set forth in claim 13? Appellants contend that “Young discloses that a conflict is resolved by rejecting the transmitter’s announcement or by dropping the neighbor from SRN . . . Young is completely silent as to conflicting transmitters independently re-selecting time slots and frequency channels” (App. Br. 14). The Examiner finds that “it is reasonable to consider that the node is able to find another frequency-slot pair to transmit on during another frame” (Ans. 12). The Examiner further finds that in Young “[w]hen a transmitter no longer needs a slot-frequency pair, it can release the selected slot- frequency and announces it in the control packet to enable other nodes to update their table and resolves any conflicting schedule” (id. at 27). Although the Examiner finds that Young releases a selected slot- frequency pair when it no longer needs it (id.), we fail to see how this embodiment discloses two transmitters conflicting by transmitting the transmission in the same time slots and frequency channels, as required by claim 13, by virtue of its dependency on claim 10. Instead, this embodiment of Young describes what happens when one no longer needs a slot- frequency pair, not what happens when a conflict in transmitting in the same slot-frequency occurs. Further, the Examiner concedes in rejecting claim 10, from which claim 13 depends, that Young does not explicitly disclose this feature (see Ans. 12–13). Claims 11 and 12 also depend upon claim 10. We are therefore constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated Appeal 2012-007387 Application 12/428,021 9 by Young. 1 We also find that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 11 and 12 for similar reasons. 2 Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claims 11–13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Young. Rejection of claims 10 and 14 under § 103(a) Claims 10 and 14 depend from independent claim 8. Appellants have not presented any separate arguments with respect to claims 10 and 14 (see App. Br. 15). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 10 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed with respect to independent claim 8. Rejection of claims 18–20 under § 103(a) Claims 18–20 depend from independent claim 15, and Appellants have presented essentially the same argument as presented for claim 15 (see App. Br. 15). Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 18–20 under 35 1 We note that the Examiner rejects independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Young, and dependent claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Young and Shahaf. The Examiner groups dependent claims 11–13 with claim 8, also rejecting these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Young even though these claims depend from claim 10, which stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Young and Shahaf. Thus, it appears that the Examiner erred in grouping the rejected claims. Although Appellants do not object to the rejection of these claims as improper, we view the Examiner mistake as reversible error. 2 In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider if dependent claims 11–13 should also be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Young and Shahaf, as was the base claim 10. Appeal 2012-007387 Application 12/428,021 10 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the same reasons discussed supra with respect to independent claim 15. Rejection of claim 21 under § 103(a) We note that the Examiner rejects independent claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Young, and dependent claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Manjeshwar and Shahaf, although claim 21 depends from claim 8. Thus, it appears that the Examiner erred in grouping the rejected claims. Although Appellants do not object to the rejection of this claim as improper (see App. Br. 15), we view the Examiner’s mistake as reversible error. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejection of claims 11–13 and § 103(a) rejection of claim 21. We affirm the Examiner’s § 102(b) rejections of claims 1, 2, 4–9, and 15–17 and § 103 rejections of claims 10, 14, and 18–20. 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). AFFIRMED-IN-PART kis Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation