Ex Parte George et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2017

13670141 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2017)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/670,141 11/06/2012 Jay Douglas George 977.206US01 1335
34206 7590 03/22/2017
FOGG fr POWER N T T C EXAMINER
4600 W 77th Street ISLAM, ROWNAK
Suite 305
MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55435 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2017 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):
DAVID @FOGGLAW.COM
docketing@fogglaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JAY DOUGLAS GEORGE and JOHN P. FILOSO
Appeal 2016-007767
Application 13/670,1411
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, DANIEL N. FISHMAN, and
JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges.
DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 2, 5—11, and 14—31. Claims 3, 4, 12, and 13 have been canceled.
App. Br. 16—17. We have jurisdiction over the remaining pending claims
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify Digi Internationals Inc. as the real party in interest.
App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2016-007767
Application 13/670,141
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ claimed invention is directed to “a synchronized network
for battery backup.” Spec. 19. In response to detecting an interruption of
main power, a network device transitions to a low-power mode of operation.
Abstract. During the low-power mode, the network device’s data
transmission is restricted to a transmission window of a synchronized sleep
schedule. Abstract.
Claim 1 is representative of the subject matter on appeal and is
reproduced below with the disputed limitation emphasized in italics'.
1. A method performed by a network device in a network, the
method comprising:
establishing a synchronized sleep schedule with the network;
transmitting data in a mains-power mode of operation without
regard for a transmission window of the synchronized sleep schedule;
detecting an interruption of mains power to the network device
and transitioning the network device to a low-power mode of operation;
and
transmitting data in the low-power mode, the low-power mode
restricting data transmission to the transmission window of the
synchronized sleep schedule, the low-power mode allowing the network
device to transmit and receive data with any other network device.
The Examiner’s Rejections2
1. Claims 1, 7, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Heidari-Bateni et al. (US 7,912,033 B2; Mar. 22,
2 After the Final Office Action, Appellants canceled claims 3,4, 12, and 13.
The above description of the rejections takes these amendments into
account. See Advisory Action, mailed Jan. 11, 2016.
2
Appeal 2016-007767
Application 13/670,141
2011) (“Heidari-Bateni”); Jeon et al. (US 2012/0287835 Al; Nov. 15, 2012
(filed July 27, 2012)) (“Jeon”); and Mali et al. (US 2006/0274764 Al;
Dec. 7, 2006) (“Mah”). Final Act. 5-15.
2. Claims 2, 5, 6, 8, 9, 11, 14, 15, 17, 18, and 25—29 stand rejected
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Heidari-Bateni, Jeon,
Mah, and Banks et al. (US 7,978,717 B2; July 12, 2011) (“Banks”).
Final Act. 15—29.
3. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heidari-Bateni, Jeon, and Sutardja et al.
(US 2008/0140921 Al; June 12, 2008) (“Sutardja”). Final Act. 29-34.
4. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heidari-Bateni, Jeon, Sutardja, and Berrios et al.
(US 2013/0006435 Al; Jan. 3, 2013 (filed July 1, 2011)) (“Berrios”).
Final Act. 34—35.
5. Claims 21—24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Heidari-Bateni, Jeon, Sutardja, and Banks. Final Act. 35—
39.
6. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Heidari-Bateni, Jeon, Mah, Banks, and
De Kimpe et al. (US 2010/0097969 Al; Apr. 22, 2010) (“De Kimpe”).
Final Act. 40-42.
Issues on Appeal
1. Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Heidari-
Bateni, Jeon, and Mah teaches or suggests “transmitting data in the low-
power mode, the low-power mode restricting data transmission to the
3
Appeal 2016-007767
Application 13/670,141
transmission window of the synchronized sleep schedule, the low-power
mode allowing the network device to transmit and receive data with any
other network device,” as recited in claim 1 ?
2. Did the Examiner provide articulated reasoning with rational
underpinnings to support the proposed combination of, inter alia, Heidari-
Bateni and Jeon?
ANALYSIS3
Appellants identify in the Final Action a statement that “‘[t]he
combination Heidari, Jeon and Mah does not specifically teach the low-
power mode allowing the network device to transmit and receive data with
any other network device,’” as recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7 (quoting Final
Act. 10). Appellants comment there is no further discussion of claim 1 after
this statement.
In response, the Examiner acknowledges this statement was a
typographical error and was included in the Final Action erroneously.
Ans. 4. The Examiner notes, as do we, all of the limitations of claim 1 were
addressed by the combination of Heidari-Bateni, Jeon, and Mah prior to this
statement being included. Ans. 4; see Final Act. 5—9.
Further, Appellants do not allege they were prejudiced by the
Examiner’s typographical error. We note Appellants were able to—and
did—substantively respond to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, including
3 Throughout this Decision, we have considered the Appeal Brief, filed
December 22, 2015 (“App. Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed August 12, 2016
(“Reply Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer, mailed June 14, 2016 (“Ans.”); and
the Final Office Action (“Final Act.”), mailed July 30, 2015, from which this
Appeal is taken.
4
Appeal 2016-007767
Application 13/670,141
the Examiner’s finding that Jeon teaches, inter alia, “transmitting data in the
low-power mode ... the low-power mode allowing the network device to
transmit and receive data with any other network device.” See App. Br. 7—
12; Reply Br. 1—6. Accordingly, we treat the identified statement on page
10 of the Final Action not as an admission by the Examiner, but rather a
harmless, misplaced typographical error.
Substantively, Appellants argue Jeon, as relied upon by the Examiner,
fails to teach the low-power mode, as claimed. App. Br. 7—10. In particular,
Appellants contend the communication module of Jeon, operating in a power
save mode, does not “transmit and receive data with any other network
device.” App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 1—3. Rather, Appellants assert Jeon teaches
when a device in the power save mode wishes to communicate with another
device, it must be switched to the normal mode of operation. App. Br. 9—10
(citing Jeon || 19, 78, 98). In order to switch from power save mode to
normal operation, Appellants assert Jeon teaches that, while in power save
mode, the device only communicates with a coordinator for management
purposes. App. Br. 10. Thus, Appellants argue while in the power save
mode, Jeon does not teach transmitting or receiving data with any other
network device. App. Br. 8—10.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error because, as Appellants
concede, Jeon teaches a device in power save mode is able to communicate
with a coordinator. See App. Br. 10. Additionally, Jeon teaches a power
save mode may be divided into two states—an awake state and a sleep state.
Jeon 146. Further, Jeon teaches “the awake state is defined as a state that
prescribed data can be transmitted or received via the communication
module [(of the device)].” Jeon 148; see also Ans. 6 (citing Jeon || 46, 48).
5
Appeal 2016-007767
Application 13/670,141
Additionally, Jeon describes the coordinator as “a normal device capable of
transmitting and receiving data via at least one channel.” Jeon | 54. Thus,
we agree with the Examiner that Jeon teaches “transmitting data in the low-
power mode [(i.e., Jeon’s power save mode)] ... the low-power mode
allowing the network device to transmit and receive data with any other
network device,” as recited in claim 1. See Final Act. 7—8 (citing Jeon
1146-48).
To the extent Appellants argue the claim language of allowing the
network device to transmit and receive data with “any other network device”
means the network device is able to transmit and receive data with every
other network device, we do not agree. App. Br. 10 (asserting the network
device in Jeon can communicate only with a coordinator and not “with any
other network device”).
“‘[T]he PTO must apply the broadest reasonable meaning to the claim
language, taking into account any definitions presented in the
specification.’” In re Am. Acad. ofSci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004) (citation omitted) quoting In re Bass, 314 F.3d 575, 577
(Fed. Cir. 2002).
Here we find the broadest reasonable interpretation of a first network
device allowed to transmit and receive data “with any other network device”
means the first network device may transmit and receive data with at least
one other network device. This is consistent with the Examiner’s
construction of this claim limitation. See Ans. 7.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner and find Jeon teaches a
network device operating in a power save (i.e., low power) mode of
operation, wherein the network device is able to transmit and receive data
6
Appeal 2016-007767
Application 13/670,141
with at least one other network device (i.e., the coordinator, which Jeon
further describes as a “normal device”). See Final Act. 7—8; see also Jeon
154.
Appellants also argue the Examiner failed to provide sufficient
reasoning in support of the proposed combination of Heidari-Bateni and
Jeon. App. Br. 10—11. In particular, Appellants assert Heidari-Bateni
teaches “a beacon period and a network device awakening from the low
power mode to conduct beacon operations.” Reply Br. 6 (citing Heidari-
Bateni, col. 11,11. 8—26). Further, Appellants argue the Examiner’s
reasoning that, adding an awake state (as taught by Jeon) to the synchronized
sleep schedule of Heidari-Bateni would improve the efficiency of managing
power in a low-power mode by allowing the device to check the
communication status of the network during the low-power mode (see
Ans. 8—9), would “increase the power consumption of the devices in the
power save mode and provide a redundant status check, which seemingly
would decrease the efficiency of the system.” Reply Br. 6—7.
We are unpersuaded of Examiner error. As an initial matter, it is well
settled that mere attorney arguments and conclusory statements, which are
unsupported by factual evidence, are entitled to little probative value. In re
Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997); see also In re Pearson, 494
F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA 1974) (attorney argument is not evidence).
Additionally, we note Jeon teaches the use of a beacon for conveying power
management mode change information to devices in a power save mode.
Jeon 112. Further, Jeon teaches the device in power save mode may be in
an awake state for every beacon. Jeon 117. While in the awake state,
prescribed data can be transmitted or received and the device may be
7
Appeal 2016-007767
Application 13/670,141
switched to a normal mode. See Jeon || 48-49. As identified by the
Examiner, Jeon describes the approach allows for greater efficiency in
power management. See Final Act. 8 (citing Jeon 110). Heidari-Bateni
discloses a sleep mode may also have multiple states (e.g., low-power state
and deep-sleep state). See Heidari-Bateni, col. 11,11. 9—11. We find
Heidari-Bateni’s different sleep mode states consistent with Jeon’s different
power save states. Accordingly, we find the Examiner has articulated
reasoning with rational underpinning to combine the references. See Ans. 8—
9; see also KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (citing In
re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 978 (Fed. Cir. 2006)).
Appellants also argue the other references identified by the Examiner
(i.e., Mah, Banks, Sutardja, Berrios, and De Kimpe) do not remedy the
identified deficiency of Heidari-Bateni and Jeon failing to teach a low-power
mode allowing a network device to transmit and receive data with any other
network device, as recited in claim 1 and commensurately recited in
independent claims 10, 19, and 25. See App. Br. 11—14. Because we
disagree Heidari-Bateni and Jeon are deficient, Appellants’ argument
concerning these other references is moot.
For the reasons discussed supra, we are unpersuaded of Examiner
error. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of representative
claim 1 and, for similar reasons, the rejections of independent claims 10, 19,
and 25. Additionally, we sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 2, 5—9,
11, 14—18, 20-24, and 26—31, which depend therefrom and were not argued
separately with particularity. See App. Br. 11—14.
8
Appeal 2016-007767
Application 13/670,141
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 5—11, and
14—31.
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).
AFFIRMED
9