Ex Parte Griffioen

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 15, 2016

13221951 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/221,951 08/31/2011
27820 7590 03/17/2016
WITHROW & TERRANOVA, PLLC
2530 Meridian Parkway
Suite 300
Durham, NC 27713
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Griffioen
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.
3000-002 4491
EXAMINER
WOOD, WILLIAM C
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2194
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/17/2016 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):
patents@wt-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT GRIFFIOEN
Appeal2014-004250
Application 13/221,951
Technology Center 2100
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, LINZY T. McCARTNEY, and
MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges.
ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitation
emphasized, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method of operation of a radio equipment connected to a radio
equipment controller that together form at least a part of a base
station in a wireless communication system, comprising:
receiving, by the radio equipment, a non-IPC message from the
radio equipment controller;
Appeal2014-004250
Application 13/221,951
translating, by the radio equipment, the non-IPC message into
an equivalent !PC message; and
providing the equivalent IPC message to a corresponding
process operating on the radio equipment.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Mehta
Espino
Eiza
Chen
US 2004/0029575 Al
US 2005/0278410 Al
US 2011/0014908 Al
US 2011/0110315 Al
Feb. 12,2004
Dec. 15, 2005
Jan.20,2011
May 12, 2011
ENEA LINX Data Sheet, High-Performance Interprocess
Communications, 2009, pp. 209-210 (hereinafter, "ENEA LINX").
Claims 13 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph as being indefinite.
Claims 1-5, 14--18, 27, 28, 30, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eiza and Espino.
Claims 6 and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eiza, Espino, and ENEA LINX.
Claims 7-11, 20-24, 29, and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Eiza, Espino, and Mehta.
Claims 12 and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eiza, Espino, Mehta, and ENEA LINX.
Claims 13 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Eiza, Espino, and Chen.
2
Appeal2014-004250
Application 13/221,951
ANALYSIS
First issue: Did the Examiner err in rejecting claims 13 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph?
The Examiner finds "[c]laims 13 and 26 refer to a UMTS wireless
communication system, a WiMAX wireless communication system, and an
E-UTRA wireless communication, all of which are subject to future changes
and therefore indefinite." Ans. 2. The Examiner further notes
UMTS has undergone several releases which add new features
and improve existing features. Without specifying a particular
version in use at the time of the invention, the claims fail to
particularly point out and distinctly define the metes and
bounds of the subject matter that would be protected by the
patent grant.
Ans. 22. Appellant argues:
[ w ]hen reading claims 13 and 26 in light of the specification,
one of ordinary skill in the art would undoubtedly understand
the metes and bounds of the protected subject matter. The terms
UivITS, WiivIAX, and E-UTRA are and will continue to be well
defined to those of ordinary skill in the art.
App. Br. 6.
Although a technical standard may change over time, claims 13 and
26 are not indefinite because a particular version of standards defining the
UMTS, WiMAX, and E-UTRA protocols existed as of the filing date of the
present application. See Ex parte McClary, 2009-001300 (BP AI 2010).
Even if these protocols change over time, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been able, and would continue to be able, to determine the scope
of claims 13 and 26 because such scope remains tied to the protocols in
effect at the time the application was filed. Id.
3
Appeal2014-004250
Application 13/221,951
Second Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Eiza and
Espino teaches or suggests the "translating" limitation recited in claim 1 and
commensurate limitations of claims 14, 27, 28, 30, and 32?
The Examiner cites paragraphs 3 7 and 49 as well as Figure 1 of Eiza
as teaching the claimed "radio equipment" and "radio equipment controller"
as well the "receiving" limitation of claim 1. The Examiner finds Eiza does
not teach the "translating" limitation and relies on Espino for this teaching.
Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner finds "Fig. 3 and paragraph 0068 in Espino
show a client message that is transported to a server after having been
translated to an appropriate format of a selected IPC product. This clearly
implies that the client message was not IPC compatible prior to the
conversion." Ans. 24--25.
Appellant argues "Espino fails to mention whether the message
supplied by the client to the client-side message broker or the message
delivered to the server from the server-side message broker are IPC
compatible or not." App. Br. 8-9 citing Espino i-f 67 ("IPC refers to
components and processes between the message broker 304 at the client 302
end and the message broker 304 at the server 322 end and includes
messaging products 316, data networks 318, and anything that supports the
communications between the client processes and the server processes.").
We agree with Appellant; the cited portion in paragraph 68 of Espino
describes "translating the message envelope (the message itself remains
unmodified) to the appropriate format of the selected IPC product." The
Examiner has not identified any portion of Espino as teaching or suggesting
that, prior to translation, the message or message envelope is a "non-IPC
message" as claimed. Therefore, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in
4
Appeal2014-004250
Application 13/221,951
finding the combination of Eiza and Espino teaches or suggests the
"translating" limitation of claim 1, as well as commensurate limitations of
claims 14, 27, 28, 30, and 32. The Examiner has not identified any
teachings in the other applied prior art references to overcome the above-
discussed deficiency of the combination of Eiza and Espino. Accordingly,
we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-32 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is reversed.
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 13 and 26 under
35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph is reversed.
REVERSED
5