Ex Parte Dobrowski et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 17, 201611652398 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 111652,398 0111112007 164 7590 02/19/2016 KINNEY & LANGE, P.A. THE KINNEY & LANGE BUILDING 312 SOUTH THIRD STREET MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55415-1002 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Patrick M. Dobrowski 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. E252.12-0036 2862 EXAMINER FOUD, HICHAM B ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/19/2016 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): uspatdocket@kinney.com smkomarec@kinney.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PA TRICK M. DOBROWSKI, ERIC R. LOVEGREN, KELLY M. ORTH, and KYLE L. STOTZ Appeal2014-000225 Application 11/652,398 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, THU A. DANG, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection of claims 1, 5 through 11, 13 through 16, 19 through 22, 25, and 27. Claims 2 through 4, 12, 17 through 18, 23 through 24, and 26 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). We affirm. INVENTION This invention is directed to a method of generating a network map using performance statistics of data gathered from nodes of the wireless network. See Abstract of Appellants' Specification. Claim 1 is representative of the invention and reproduced below. Appeal2014-000225 Application 11/652,398 1. A method of monitoring operation of a wireless mesh network having a plurality of nodes in which messages are deterministically routed through the wireless mesh network, the method comprising: collecting positional information relating to the nodes; collecting network performance data from the nodes and one or more operating parameters related to node operation including battery life information that is distinct from the network performance data provided by the nodes; and generating a visual representation of the network based upon the positional information, the network performance data, and the node operation parameters wherein the visual representation includes an icon representing each node, wherein each icon is positioned in the visual representation based upon the positional information, and lines connecting the icons represent assigned message routes between the nodes, wherein the icon representing each node displays information related to the collected node operating parameters including battery life information associated with each node that allows a user to visually inspect battery life status of the plurality of nodes in the wireless mesh network. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5 through 11, 13 through 16, 19 through 22, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Rappaport et al. (US 2004/0259555 Al; Dec. 23, 2004), Qiu et al. (US 7,606,165 Bl; Oct. 20, 2009) and Cassett et al. (US 2006/0217116 Al; Sept. 28, 2006). Ans. 2-13. 1 1 Throughout this Decision, we refer to the Appeal Brief dated June 13, 2013 (App. Br.), the Reply Brief dated Oct. 1, 2013 (Reply Br.), the Examiner's 2 Appeal2014-000225 Application 11/652,398 ISSUES Appellants present several arguments, on pages 5 through 8 of the Appeal Brief and pages 2 through 4 of the Reply Brief, directed to the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 1, 8, and 16. These arguments present us with the following issues: a) Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Rappaport, Qiu and Cassett teaches collection of operating parameters such as battery life status information associated with each node in a wireless network as recited representative claim 1? b) Did the Examiner err in finding the skilled artisan would combine the teachings of Rappaport, Qiu and Cassett? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief and the Reply Brief, the Examiner's rejections, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 5 through 11, 13 through 16, 19 through 22, 25, and 27. Appellants' arguments directed to the first issue focus on the teachings of Cassett. Specifically, Appellants argue Cassett teaches collecting performance statistics from devices and not nodes as recited in the Answer mailed Aug. 1, 2013 (Ans.), and the Final Action mailed Aug. 14, 2012 (Final Action). 3 Appeal2014-000225 Application 11/652,398 claims. App. Br. 6. The Examiner provides a comprehensive response to these arguments, finding that Cassett's teachings apply to other devices which meet the claimed nodes. Ans. 14--15 (citing Cassett para. 47). We have reviewed the Examiner's response and the teachings of Cassett and concur with the Examiner. Appellants' argument, on page 2 of Reply Br., that Cassett's teachings are not directed to cell-towers, satellites or wireless routers, and as such is not directed to not directed to nodes which make up a wireless network, is not persuasive of error as this argument not commensurate with the scope of representative claim 1. Claim 1, recites a network having a plurality of nodes in which messages are routed, and does not identify what type of devices are nodes. As the Examiner identifies, Cassett teaches that the devices can include data relays, and we agree with the Examiner's finding that this is a node in which a message is routed. This finding is further supported by Cassett' s teaching that the wireless devices communicate data packets between each other and other components of the wireless network. Cassett, para. 65. Thus, Appellants' arguments directed to the first issue have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Rappaport, Qiu and Cassett teaches collection of operating parameters such as battery life status information associated with each node in a wireless network as recited independent claims 1, 8, and 16. 2 2Evidence that the devices in Cassett are nodes aside, we are not persuaded of error. Appellants have not disputed the Examiner's finding that the other references teach monitoring an operating parameter of a node in a communications network. Cassett merely teach teaches that the battery life of a device is an operating parameter to be monitored, and the application of monitoring this parameter to nodes of a network is merely adding an additional parameter to the known systems of monitoring parameters 4 Appeal2014-000225 Application 11/652,398 Appellants' arguments directed to the second issue are premised upon the assertion Cassett teaching monitoring a device on a network and not a node on a network. Ans. 7. As discussed above, we find ample evidence to support the Examiner's finding that Cassett' s teachings also apply to nodes of a network. Further, the Examiner has provided a reasoned rationale as to why the skilled artisan would combine the teachings of Rappaport, Qiu and Cassett. We have reviewed the Examiner's rationale and the evidence relied upon by the Examiner and concur with the Examiner's conclusion. Thus, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding the skilled artisan would combine the teachings of Rappaport, Qiu and Cassett. As Appellants' arguments directed to these two issues have not persuaded us of error in the rejection of representative claim 1, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, 5 through 11, 13 through 16, 19 through 22, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 5 through 11, 13 through 16, 19 through 22, 25, and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R § 1.136(a)(l )(iv). effecting the operation of nodes operating on the network (see also Qui, col 1, 11. 41, and col 4, ll.1). 5 Appeal2014-000225 Application 11/652,398 AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation