Ex Parte Derr et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 7, 2016

12419901 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/419,901 0410712009
85013 7590 10/12/2016
TraskBritt I Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC
PO Box 2550
Salt Lake City, UT 84110
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
KurtW. Derr
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.
2939-9221US (BA-281) 1490
EXAMINER
AHN,SUNGS
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/12/2016 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):
USPTOMail@traskbritt.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KURT W. DERR and JOHN G. RICHARDSON
Appeal2015-006843 1
Application 12/419,901
Technology Center 2600
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify Battelle Energy Alliance, LLC as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 4.
Appeal2015-006843
Application 12/419,901
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-18, 20, 21, 24--27, 29, and 30, which
are all the pending claims. Appeal Br. 4. Claims 19, 22, 23, and 28 have
been cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants' invention is directed to "monitoring devices and systems
configured to monitor frequency hopping wireless communications without
handshaking or other transmission by the [devices] or [systems]." Spec i-f 5.
Claim 1 is representative and reproduced below, with emphasis added to the
disputed elements:
1. A wireless communication monitoring device,
compnsmg:
a plurality of data channel modules, each data channel
module of the plurality of data channel modules configured to
capture wireless communications of data for at least one selected
frequency channel of a plurality of frequency channels
substantially unrelated to frequency hopping sequences of the
captured wireless communications, wherein capturing the
wireless communications is performed without prior
knowledge of the frequency hopping sequences and without
participating in handshake protocols; and
processing circuitry coupled to the plurality of data
channel modules and configured to:
receive the captured wireless communications from
the plurality of data channel modules;
2
Appeal2015-006843
Application 12/419,901
regardless of order received at the processing
circuitry and regardless of the data channel module
received from, identify that packets from at least two
different data channel modules of the plurality belong to
a group responsive to at least one parameter in the packets
identifying at least one of a transmitting device, a
receiving device, and a transmission sequence; and
organize the data in the captured wireless
communications from the at least two different data
channel modules of the plurality of data channel
modules into the group according to the at least one
parameter.
Appeal Br. 26. (Claims App.).
B. The Rejection on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1-18, 20, 21, 24--27, 29, and 30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Eliezer (US 2009/0257396 Al; Oct.
15, 2009), in view of Bloebaum (US 2005/0207350 Al; Sept. 22, 2005) and
further in view ofiviogensen (US 2004/0268351 Al; Dec. 30, 2004). Final
Act. 4.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue that the combination of Eliezer and Bloebaum fails
to teach "organiz[ing] the data in the captured wireless communications
from the at least two different data channel modules of the plurality of data
channel modules into the group according to the at least one parameter," as
recited in independent claim 1. 2 See Appeal Br. 11. Appellants agree with
2 Appellants' arguments raise additional issues, but we do not reach them
because the identified issue is dispositive of the appeal.
3
Appeal2015-006843
Application 12/419,901
the Examiner that Eliezer does not explicitly disclose the aforementioned
claim element, and further argue Eliezer does not suggest a need or
capability to organize packets from different transceivers (which the
Examiner finds teaches the claimed "data channel modules") because Eliezer
describes that all of the data from a data stream comes from a single radio
frequency (RF) receiver and is presented to a central processing unit (CPU)
as a contiguous data stream. See Appeal Br. 11-13; see also Reply Br. 2.
Appellants also argue that Bloebaum teaches a single transceiver that
transmits or receives packets, and, therefore, Bloebaum does not teach or
suggest a capability of organizing packets from different RF transceivers.
See Appeal Br. 14; see also Reply Br. 2.
We find Appellants' argument persuasive. We agree with Appellants
that the Examiner has not shown that Eliezer and Bloebaum, whether
considered individually or in combination, teach organizing data in captured
wireless communications from at least two different data channel modules
into a group (or otherwise) according to at least one parameter. More
specifically, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner failed to show
Eliezer teaches or suggests that the CPU organizes data received from at
least two RF transceivers according to at least one parameter. See Appeal
Br. 11-13 (citing Eliezer i-fi-162, 64---65). Further, we agree with Appellants
that, while Bloebaum describes a system that receives packets from a single
transceiver, and further describes that a packet header contains information
for packet acknowledgment, reordering, and flow control, the Examiner
failed to show Bloebaum teaches the system organizes data in the packets
received from at least two transceivers according to the information
4
Appeal2015-006843
Application 12/419,901
contained in the packet header or according to any other type of parameter.
See Appeal Br. 13-14 (citing Bloebaum i-f 5).
Thus, we agree with Appellants that the combination of Eliezer and
Bloebaum fails to teach or suggest "organiz[ing] the data in the captured
wireless communications from the at least two different data channel
modules of the plurality of data channel modules into the group according to
the at least one parameter," as recited in independent claim 1. Further, the
Examiner failed to establish that Mogensen cures the deficiencies of Eliezer
and Bloebaum.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claim 1. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of
independent claims 7, 16, and 24, which recite substantially similar
limitations as claim 1, or dependent claims 2---6, 8-15, 17, 18, 20, 21, 25-27,
29, and 30.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-18, 20, 21, 24--27,
29, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
REVERSED
5