Ex Parte Denteneer

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

13143447 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/143,447 07/06/2011 Theodorus Jacobus Johannes Denteneer
24737 7590 03/23/2016
PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2009P00226WOUS 5737
EXAMINER
CUNNINGHAM, KEVIN M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/23/2016 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):
debbie.henn@philips.com
marianne.fox@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte THEODORUS JACOBUS JOHANNES DENTENEER
Appeal2014-006221
Application 13/143,447
Technology Center 2400
Before DAVID M. KOHUT, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges.
RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 6, and 10, which are all of the claims currently rejected
in the application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Claims 2-5 and 8 have been canceled. App. Br. 13. The Examiner
withdrew the rejection of claims 7 and 9. Ans. 4.
Appeal2014-006221
Application 13/143,447
INVENTION
Appellant's invention is directed to reservation of transmission times
for communications in mesh networks. Spec 1. Claim 1 is exemplary of the
subject matter on appeal:
1. A method for reserving transmission time for
transmission between a first mesh station and a second mesh
station in a mesh network, said second mesh station having at
least one neighbor station, the method comprising:
the first mesh station requesting reservation information
regarding existing reservations from the second mesh station,
the second mesh station sending an advertisement
including its own reservation information as well as reservation
information concerning the at least one neighbor station, and
the first mesh station determining a new reservation based
on the received advertisement and on its own reservation
information,
wherein the reservation information of the first mesh
station and the reservation information of the second mesh
station each include a remaining reservation capacity
representing a difference between a reservation threshold and a
reservation fraction.
REJECTION ON APPEAL
Claims 1, 6, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
obvious over Kangude (US 2007 /0060141 Al; published Mar. 15, 2007).
Final Act. 2--4.2
2 See supra note 1.
2
Appeal2014-006221
Application 13/143,447
ISSUE
Appellant's contentions present us with the following issue: Did the
Examiner err in finding Kangude teaches or suggests "the reservation
information of the first mesh station and the reservation information of the
second mesh station each include a remaining reservation capacity
representing a difference between a reservation threshold and a reservation
fraction" ("remaining reservation capacity" limitation), as recited in
independent claim 1?
ANALYSIS
Appellant contends Kangude does not teach the "remaining
reservation capacity" limitation recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br.
2-3. Appellant acknowledges Kangude teaches an MDA (mesh
deterministic access) Access Fraction and an MDA Access fraction limit and
admits it would be within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to
subtract the MDA Access Fraction from the MDA Fraction Limit. App. Br.
8. However, Appellant argues there is no suggestion in Kangude to modify
the messages to include such information and that such a modification would
not be a simple variation because it would require a different frame
structure. Id.; Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues the Examiner provides
no citations to Kangude or any other cited reference for supporting the
proffered motivations for modifying Kangude. Reply Br. 3.
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments. We agree
with and adopt as our own the findings, reasons, and conclusions set forth by
the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in the
Examiner's Answer. We note the following primarily for emphasis.
3
Appeal2014-006221
Application 13/143,447
The Examiner finds, and we agree, Kangude teaches advertisements
(reservation information) that includes a MAP (MDA Access Fraction)
(reservation fraction) and a MAP limit (reservation threshold). Ans. 4
(citing Kangude iii! 34, 51, 61 ); see also Final Act. 2-3. As noted above,
Appellant does not dispute these findings. The Examiner further finds "it
would have been routine skill in the art, at the time of the invention to
subtract the maximum limit [MAP limit] minus the busy time [MAP] to get
the available time for the remaining capacity and it is a simple variation to
explicitly advertise it." Ans. 4--5. We agree. An obviousness 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." KSR
Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Moreover, Appellant
admits the subtraction is within the ability of one of skill in the art and does
not provide persuasive argument, or evidence, that a modification to the
frame structure to include the information would not be a simple variation
within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art.
The Examiner additionally finds the simple calculation to derive the
remaining capacity must be done by either the receiving mesh station or the
transmitting station, and the motivation to modify Kangude to have the
transmitting station make the calculation is to reduce processing at the
receiving mesh station. Ans. 5. Contrary to Appellant's argument that the
Examiner must cite to a reference to support a motivation to modify
Kangude, "[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic
conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by
overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit
4
Appeal2014-006221
Application 13/143,447
content of issued patents." KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Instead, the relevant
inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth "some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with
approval inKSR, 550 U.S. at 418). We agree with the Examiner's
articulated reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify
Kangude to have the transmitting station calculate and advertise the
difference between the MAF limit and the MAF to derive the remaining
reservation capacity and determine it is sufficient to support the conclusion
of obviousness.
For the reasons stated above, Appellant fails to persuade us of error in
the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of: (1) claim 1; (2) dependent claim 6, for which Appellant merely
reiterates the arguments made for claim 1 (App. Br 9-10); and (3) dependent
claim 10, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments made for claim
1 (App. Br. 11 ).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 6, and 10.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
5
Appeal2014-006221
Application 13/143,447
AFFIRMED
6