Ex Parte Crenshaw et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 23, 2010

11183899 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 23, 2010)

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.
11/183,899 07/19/2005 Ralph E. Crenshaw 86655.1532 1600
7590 09/24/2010
VOLENTINE FRANCOS & WHITT, PLLC
SUITE 1260
11951 FREEDOM DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20190
EXAMINER
SWARTHOUT, BRENT
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2612
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/24/2010 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 BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte RALPH E. CRENSHAW, DAVID W. GRIMES,
and PETER L. LARSON
_____________

Appeal 2009-008060
Application 11/183,899
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and BRADLEY W. BAUMEISTER, Administrative Patent Judges.

MANTIS MERCADER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL1

1 The two-month time period for filing an appeal or commencing a civil
action, as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 1.304, or for filing a request for rehearing,
as recited in 37 C.F.R. § 41.52, begins to run from the “MAIL DATE”
(paper delivery mode) or the “NOTIFICATION DATE” (electronic delivery
mode) shown on the PTOL-90A cover letter attached to this decision.
Appeal 2009-008060
Application 11/183,899

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 18-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to injecting a gateway
Power Line Carrier (PLC) signal, which allows for simultaneous transport of
data at high rates, at a service panel (30) to symmetrically feed all of the
receptacles (35). See Spec. ¶¶ [0003], [00017]; Fig. 1.
Claim 18, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on
appeal:
18. A communication network configured to provide
communications services over a power-line network residing in
a building, the network comprising:
a communication device;
an electronic network coupled to the communication
device and further coupled to the power-line network, wherein
the electronic network includes one or more carrier current
couplers each providing an electrical interface between the
communication device and a respective power wire of the
power-line network; and
a plurality of terminals coupled to the power-line
network;
wherein the communication device and the plurality of
terminals form a communication network having a hub-and
spoke network LAN topology over the power-line network with
the communication device acting as a hub to relay messages
between the plurality of terminals.
Appeal 2009-008060
Application 11/183,899

3

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of unpatentability:
Abraham US 6,014,386 Jan. 11, 2000
Li US 6,119,162 Sep. 12, 2000
Merriman US 6,614,326 B2 Sep. 2, 2003
Carson US 6,842,668 B2 Jan. 11, 2005
The following rejections are before us for review:
1. The Examiner rejected claims 18, 28, and 30-35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merriman in view of Li.
2. The Examiner rejected claims 19-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Merriman in view of Li and Abraham.
3. The Examiner rejected claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Merriman in view of Li, Abraham, and Carson.
4. The Examiner rejected claims 27 and 29 under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Merriman in view of Li and Carson.

ISSUE
The pivotal issue is whether the Examiner’s articulated reasoning in
modifying Merriman in view of Li possesses a rational underpinning to
support the legal conclusion of obviousness.

Appeal 2009-008060
Application 11/183,899

4
FINDINGS OF FACT (FF)
The following Findings of Fact are supported by a preponderance of
the evidence:
1. Li teaches a typical “hub and spoke” configuration of a local area
network 10 (LAN) wherein each of the computers 12 is coupled to
LAN 10 through network hub 14 (col. 4, ll. 34-39; col. 6, ll. 4-5). Li
teaches that each terminal 12 has a short conductor line
communicating with hub 14 (Fig. 1).
2. Li teaches that “[a]dditionally, although LAN 10 typically comprises
standard . . . connections, it could also comprise connections made via
power lines” (col. 6, ll. 7-9).

PRINCIPLES OF LAW
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in the rejection must possess a
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness. In re
Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Supreme Court stated that
“‘[r]ejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.’” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007)
(quoting Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988). However, “the analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id.
“The diversity of inventive pursuits and of modern technology
counsels against confining the obviousness analysis by a formalistic
Appeal 2009-008060
Application 11/183,899

5
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by
overemphasizing the importance of published articles and the explicit
content of issued patents.” Id. at 402. “Rigid preventative rules that deny
factfinders recourse to common sense . . . are neither necessary . . . nor
consistent with” our case law. Id. at 421.

ANALYSIS
Analysis regarding the rejection of claims 18, 28, and 30-35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Merriman in view of Li
Appellants do not contest that both power line communications and
hub-and-spoke topology have been well known for decades (Br. 10).
However, Appellants argue (Br. 10) that there is no evidence as to anyone
contemplating their combination. Appellants further argue (Br. 9) that the
Examiner failed to list a single advantage for combining a centrally located
hub with a power line network. Appellants assert (Br. 10) that, contrary to
the Examiner’s reasoning (Ans. 4, 9), there is no assurance that a hub-and-
spoke topology would lead to shorter communication distances between any
two nodes, or somehow improve reliability. Appellants further argue (Br.
11) that the Zuberi article2 teaches that “peer-to-peer networking is
universally used among PLC modem chipsets,” and thus, teaches away from
hub-and-spoke topologies used with PLC. Finally, Appellants’ Declaration3
(Br. 12) is offered to prove that the improved performance of Appellants’
hub-and-spoke power line networks is more pronounced for crowded

2 Khurram Hussain Zuberi, Powerline Carrier (PLC) Communication
Systems (Royal Institute of Technology, Sep. 9, 2003).
3 Referring to the Declaration dated 12/04/2007 by Mr. James Landry.
Appeal 2009-008060
Application 11/183,899

6
networks, which is the opposite of what should be expected, and that the
hub-and-spoke power line networks have been a commercial success.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 8-13).
At the outset, we note that Li teaches a typical “hub and spoke”
configuration of LAN 10 wherein each of the computers 12 is coupled to
LAN 10 through network hub 14 (FF 1). Li most importantly teaches that
“[a]dditionally, although LAN 10 typically comprises standard . . .
connections, it could also comprise connections made via power lines” (FF 2
(emphasis added)). Thus, contrary to Appellants’ argument (Br. 10), Li
teaches that a “hub and spoke” topology could have been combined with
power line communications. For the same reason, we are not persuaded by
Appellants’ argument regarding Zuberi (Br. 11) describing typical
connections between peer-to-peer topology with PLC, because Li expressly
teaches that a hub and spoke topology could have also comprised
connections made via power lines.
Furthermore, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with some
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness based
on common sense. In other words, the Examiner articulated as a motivation
to combine (Ans. 4, 9) that hub and spoke topology would lead to shorter
communication distances or improved liability because hub and spoke
systems utilize shorter conductor lengths, as shown in Li, wherein each
terminal 12 has short conductor line communicating with hub 14 (FF 1).
The Examiner explains (Ans. 9) that if terminals were connected in a serial
fashion to hub 14, then terminals furthest from the hub would have been
more prone to suffer transmission losses and greater interference, both of
which would have adversely affected system reliability. See KSR, 550 U.S.
Appeal 2009-008060
Application 11/183,899

7
at 418. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments (Br. 9)
that the Examiner failed to list a single advantage for combining a centrally
located hub with a power line network.
For the same reason, we agree with the Examiner’s reasoning (Ans.
10), that Appellants’ Declaration (Br. 12) is not persuasive because one
skilled in the art would have expected that a power line communication
system using shorter conductors of a hub and spoke network would have
performed better than other systems with longer transmission conductors,
since this would have resulted in lower distribution losses and minimized
interference from other sources, leading to greater system reliability.
Thus, we will affirm the Examiner’s rejection of representative claim
18 and for similar reasons the rejections of claims 28 and 30-35.

Analysis regarding the rejection of claims 19-27 and 29
For the same reasons as articulated supra, we will also affirm the
rejections of claims 19-27 and 29 over the additional references of Abraham
and/or Carson, because Appellants (Br. 13-17) do not advance any other
additional arguments of patentability with respect to these claims.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s articulated reasoning in modifying Merriman in view
of Li possesses a rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.

ORDER
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 18-35 is affirmed.
Appeal 2009-008060
Application 11/183,899

8
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)(v).

AFFIRMED

babc

VOLENTINE FRANCOS & WHITT, PLLC
SUITE 1260
11951 FREEDOM DRIVE
RESTON, VA 20190