Ex Parte Dobrowski et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 17, 2016

11652398 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 17, 2016)

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