Ex Parte Durand et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 17, 2012

11102954 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 17, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
_____________

Ex parte ROGER DURAND and MICHAEL YUEN

Appeal 2009-013796
Application 11/102,954
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before JOSEPH F. RUGGIERO, ROBERT E. NAPPI, and MARC S.
HOFF, Administrative Patent Judges.

Per Curiam

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2009-013796
Application 11/102,954

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1, 3 through 7, and 9 through 13.
1
Claim 2 and 8 have been
canceled
.

We affirm.
INVENTION
The invention involves a technique for coping with interference in a
wireless network. See Specification pages 2 and 3. Claim 1 is
representative of the invention and reproduced below:

1. In a wireless network having a first device and a second device,
a method for coping with interference from a third device that
adversely effects communications between the first device and the
second device comprising the steps of: recognizing the existence of
interference; obtaining a sample of the interference;
determining whether the interference originates from a known
type of device by comparing the sample with a plurality of stored
interference signal patterns;
if the interference is determined to have originated from a
known type of device, selecting a predetermined remedial action
based at least in-part on device type; and

1
While Appellants state on page 2 of the Brief, that “claims 1, 7 and 13 are
subject of this appeal,” it is the Notice of Appeal, which gives us jurisdiction
over a case. Appellants’ Notice of Appeal dated July 24, 2008 gives us
jurisdiction over all the rejections in the February 25, 2008 Final Rejection
by identifying the last decision of the Examiner. The Final Rejection
includes rejections directed to claims 3 through 6 and 9 through 12. Thus,
the rejection of claims 3 through 6 and 9 through 12 is before us. This is
consistent with the Examiner’s supplemental Answer dated November 13,
2008, and Ex Parte Ghuman, No. 2008-1175, 2008 WL 2109842 (BPAI
May 1, 2008) (precedential).
Appeal 2009-013796
Application 11/102,954

3

if the interference is determined to have originated from an
unknown type of device, selecting a remedial action based on the
obtained sample of the interference.

REFERENCES
Hundal US 2004/0132410 A1 Jul. 8, 2004
Irion US 2005/0164638 A1 Jul. 28, 2005
Sherlock US 7,039,017 B2 May 2, 2006

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 4 through 7, and 10 through 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Sherlock. Supp. Answer 2-
3.
2

The Examiner has rejected claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Hundal. Supp. Answer 4-5.
The Examiner has rejected claims 3 and 9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sherlock in view of Irion. Supp. Answer 3-4.
Appellants’ Contentions
As to the anticipation rejection, Appellants contend that Sherlock does
not support a finding of anticipation because:
Sherlock fails to teach selecting a predetermined remedial
action based on device type if the interference is determined to

2
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Examiner’s Answer mailed on
October 6, 2008, and the Supplemental Answer dated November 13, 2008.
Appeal 2009-013796
Application 11/102,954

4

have originated from a known type of device as recited in
claims 1 and 7.
(App. Br 8).
3
As to the obviousness rejection of claim 13, Appellants contend that
Hundal does not support a finding of obviousness because:
Hundal fails to describe matching at least some characteristics
of the signal sample with at least some characteristics of a
stored interference signal pattern as recited in claim 13.
(App. Br 11).
As to the obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 9, as discussed supra,
Appellants have not addressed this rejection.

Issue on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 1, 4 through 7 and 10 through
12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) because Sherlock fails to describe selecting a
predetermined remedial action based upon device type if the interference is
determined to have originated from a known type of device?
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 13 as being obvious because
Hundal fails to describe matching at least some characteristics of the signal
sample with at least some characteristics of a stored interference signal
pattern?

3
Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief dated August 27,
2008.
Appeal 2009-013796
Application 11/102,954

5

ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred.
We disagree with Appellants’ conclusions. We adopt as our own
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in
the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the conclusion reached by the Examiner.
With respect to the obviousness rejection of claims 3 and 9,
Appellants, by not addressing this rejection, have waived any argument
directed to the rejection. See Ex parte Borden, 93 USPQ2d 1473, 1473-74
(BPAI 2010).

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1, 4 through 7
and 10 through 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Sherlock.
(2) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 3, 9, and 13 as
being obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(3) Claims 1, 3 through 7, and 9 through 13 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3 through 7, and 9 through 13 is
affirmed.
Appeal 2009-013796
Application 11/102,954

6

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)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD