Ex Parte Cho

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Dec 27, 2011

10226126 (B.P.A.I. Dec. 27, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte DONG-SIK CHO
____________

Appeal 2009-009504
Application 10/226,126
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGERIO, CARL W. WHITEHEAD, JR., and
BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

WHITEHEAD, JR., Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-009504
Application 10/226,126

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 8. Appeal Brief 4. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b) (2002). We reverse.

Exemplary Claim
Exemplary independent claim 1 under appeal reads as follows:
1. A wireless communication method, comprising the steps of:
a) determining as to whether communication parameters satisfy a
precondition for communication before a single master device
communicates with a slave device in a corresponding mode, the
communication parameters being required for the slave devices1 to
communicate with the master device, the precondition being that the slave
devices should communicate with the master device without overlapping of
communication time thereof; and
b) controlling the communication of the slave devices according to the
corresponding mode by differently setting operation information of the slave
devices according to the corresponding mode, when determining that the
communication parameters satisfy the precondition for communication.

Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Ho (U.S.
Patent Application Publication Number 2002/0034172 A1; Mar. 21, 2002)
and Souissi (U.S. Patent Number 6,920,171 B2; July 19, 2005). Answer 3-
5.

1 Claim 1 does not provide adequate antecedent basis for the term, “the slave
devices” (in the plural). The prior claim language alternatively recites “a
slave device (in the singular). Appellant and the Examiner should resolve
this inconsistency.
Appeal 2009-009504
Application 10/226,126

3

Issue
Does the combination of Ho and Souissi disclose wherein a
precondition for communication between a master device and a slave device
has to be satisfied before the slave device communicates with the master
device and wherein the precondition being the slave device communicates
with the master device without overlapping the communication time?

ANALYSIS
The invention attempts to eliminate coincidental overlap of
communication of a plurality of slave devices within a certain period of time
within a one-to-multi-communication Bluetooth configuration thus avoiding
interference between slave devices when they communicate with the master
device at different times. Specification 1-4.
Appeal 2009-009504
Application 10/226,126

4

Figure 2 is a flowchart of the present invention showing a
communications method capable of preventing communication interference
and cutoff. Specification 8, 11-16.

The Examiner finds that Ho discloses, “the precondition being that the
slave devices should communicate with the master device without
overlapping of communication time thereof (see Ho, para. [0082], lines 4-
6).” Answer 4. Ho discloses in paragraphs [0081] and [0082]:
[0081] In accordance with the protocol of the present invention,
the master unit regularly (subject to bandwidth availability)
sends Permit frames containing a broadcast RA field (=000)
Appeal 2009-009504
Application 10/226,126

5
and a TX_Mini field whose value is an integer multiple of the
number of minislots, “i”, needed for transmitting an ID frame at
the lowest transmission rate mandated for a new station, shown
in step 702 of FIG. 7. A slave unit seeking to join a piconet
waits until receiving such a Permit frame. It then, in step 704,
partitions the minislots specified by the TX_Mini field into a
number of adjoining groups each of “i” consecutive minislots,
and then, in step 706, transmits its ID frame into a randomly
chosen group of minislots out of those groups back to the
master unit.
[0082] If a master successfully receives an ID frame out of one
of the groups of minislots defined above, it will begin the
process of admitting that slave into the piconet in step 708. If
the master detects one or more collisions in the groups of
minislots, it will, within a preset time limit, send another Permit
frame containing a broadcast RA field (=000) and a TX_Mini
field whose value is chosen for a rapid resolution of the
collisions. The above steps are repeated until no more
collisions are detected or the master decides to suspend the
issuance of Permit frames as defined above although there may
be stations still attempting to join the piconet.
Appellant argues that paragraphs [0081] and [0082] do not disclose
step “a)” of claim 1 because Ho merely describes a process for joining a
piconet and relates to avoidance of collisions of ID frames. Appeal Brief
10-11.
The Examiner attempts to address Appellant’s arguments by
providing a summary of paragraphs [0081] and [0082] and maintains that
claim 1’s “a)” limitation is disclosed within the paragraphs. Answer 6-7.
The Examiner further reasons that the precondition recited in claim 1 is
“given as an intended result. Thus, claim 1 merely presents the intention
that the slave devices should communicate with the master device without
overlapping of communication time thereof. Therefore, claim 1 does not
require the determination of the precondition.” Answer 7.
Appeal 2009-009504
Application 10/226,126

6
Appellant argues:
Regarding the Examiner’s assertion that claim 1 does not
require the determination of the precondition, Appellants
submit that claim 1 requires “determining as to whether
communication parameters satisfy a precondition . . . the
precondition being that the slave devices should communicate
with the master device without overlapping of communication
time thereof”. Therefore, the claim clearly requires that a
determination be made that the communication parameters
satisfy a precondition.
Reply Brief 6-7.
We find Appellant’s arguments to be persuasive. Ho does not
disclose the precondition requirement recited in claim 1. Further, the
Examiner’s recitation of Ho’s paragraphs [0081] and [0082] in the Answer is
not sufficient to explain how and where Ho discloses the claimed
precondition/overlapping of communication time limitation in lieu of Ho’s
silence. Also, we find the Examiner’s reasoning that claim 1 does not
require the determination of the precondition to be unpersuasive because, as
Appellant indicated, it is readily apparent from the language employed in
claim 1 that such a requirement is recited and, thus, required. Souissi does
not address the deficiencies of Ho. Therefore, we will not sustain the
Examiner’s rejection.

DECISION
The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).

REVERSED
babc