Ex Parte Gyselings et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

10436055 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 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.
10/436,055 05/13/2003 Tim Gyselings 120739-US-NP 1109
59978 7590 03/01/2017
Chiesa Shahinian & Giantomasi PC (ALU)
Attn: Jeffrey M. Weinick
One Boland Drive
West Orange, NJ 07052
EXAMINER
NGO, NGUYEN HOANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
patent @ csglaw. com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte TIM GYSELINGS, EDWIN AUGUST PHILOMENA RINGOOT,
ERWIN ALFONS CONSTANT SIX, and BRECHT STUBBE
Appeal 2016-004439
Application 10/436,055
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, DEBRA K. STEPHENS, and
JOHN F. HORVATH, Administrative Patent Judges.
MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-004439
Application 10/436,055
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—5, 7, and 8. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b). Claim 6 has been objected to. Id. at 1.
Exemplary Claim
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis and
brackets added):
1. A time slot management method of a time division multiple
access system that couples a line terminator via a tree-like network to
a plurality of network terminators, said method comprising:
[(A)] transmitting, by said line terminator, at least one grant
towards a network terminator in order to allocate a plurality of
adjacent subsequent upstream time-slots to said network terminator,
respectively, wherein each of said plurality of time-slots corresponds
to each of said at least one grant, respectively;
[(B)] receiving said at least one grant by said network
terminator from said line terminator; and
[(C)] recognizing if said at least one grant is associated to said
network terminator, and
[(D)] in response to recognizing that said at least one grant is
associated to said network terminator, transmitting, in a data burst,
overhead data in a first time slot of said plurality of time-slots and
payload data in each adjacent subsequent time-slot of said plurality
of time-slots allocated to said network terminator, wherein the
overhead data in the first time-slot is a combined overhead data of the
each adjacent subsequent time-slot.
2
Appeal 2016-004439
Application 10/436,055
Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1—5, 7, and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combination of Shraga et al. (US 6,697,374
Bl; issued Feb. 24, 2004) and Quigley et al. (US 7,103,065 Bl; issued Sept.
5, 2006).1
Appellants ’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
PHY overhead portions 120 having physical layer overhead
information, as explained in the cited portions of Quigley, does
not teach or suggest at least PHY overhead portions 120 having
“combined overhead data” of data portion 122 and FEC portion
494.
App. Br. 6, emphasis added. Appellants continue:
[tjhere is no teaching or suggestion in the cited portions of
Quigley of PHY overhead portion 120 as being “combined
overhead data” of each data 122 and FEC 494 section. That is,
PHY overhead portion 120 contains physical layer overhead
information and does not include combined overhead data of
data 122 and FEC 494. The cited portions of Quigley are silent
with regards to physical layer overhead information being
“combined overhead data of the each adjacent subsequent time-
slot.” Thus, PHY overhead portion 120 fails to teach or suggest
“combined overhead data of the each adjacent subsequent time-
slot.”
App. Br. 6—7, emphasis added.
1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2—5, 7, and 8. As to claims
7 and 8, Appellants merely reference the arguments of claim 1. As to claims
2—5, Appellants merely reference their respective dependence from claim 1.
This fails to constitute arguments for separate patentability. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
3
Appeal 2016-004439
Application 10/436,055
2. Appellants also contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he Examiner’s contentions are not supported by the cited
portions of Quigley. Merely because MAC frame 128 includes
a single PHY overhead portion 120 in Figure 37 of Quigley does
not support the Examiner’s contention that PHY overhead 120 is
combined overhead data of data portions 122 and FEC portions
494. Nowhere in the cited portions of Quigley is it taught or
suggested that PHY Overhead portions 120 are “combined
overhead data of the each adjacent subsequent time-slot.”
Column 48, lines 25-28 of Quigley merely explains that “The
PHY overhead portion 120 contains physical layer overhead
information.” However, as noted in the Appeal Brief, PHY
overhead portion 120 containing physical layer overhead
information, as explained in Quigley, does not teach or suggest
at least that PHY overhead portion 120 includes “combined
overhead data” of data portion 122 and FEC portion 494. The
Examiner fails to provide a citation to Quigley to support his
contention that PHY overhead portion 120 includes “combined
overhead data” of data portion 122 and FEC portion 494. Thus,
the Examiner’s contentions are not supported by the cited
portions of Quigley.
Reply Br. 3, emphasis added.
Issues on Appeal
Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments (Appeal Brief and Reply Brief) that the Examiner has erred.
As to Appellants’ above contentions 1 and 2, we disagree. We agree
with the Examiner’s finding that an artisan would recognized the overhead
4
Appeal 2016-004439
Application 10/436,055
portion 120 as combined overhead data for the subsequent time slots.
Quigley teaches:
Each MAC frame 179 includes at least one PHY overhead
portion 120, one data portion 122 and forward error correcting
(FEC) portion 494. Optionally, each MAC frame 179 may
include a plurality of data portions 122 and corresponding
forward error correcting (FEC) portions 494, if desired.
Col. 48,11. 36-40. Quigley explicitly teaches MAC frame 179 has as its
parts overhead portion 120, one or more data portions 122, and one or more
FEC portions 494. Further, we conclude an artisan would understand the
overhead portion 120 to be the overhead for the entire MAC frame 179 of
which it is a part. Therefore, an artisan would understand the overhead
portion 120 to be the overhead data for each subsequent portion of MAC
frame 179.
To the extent that Appellants are arguing that the term “combined”
(in the claimed “combined overhead data”) has a particular meaning that
precludes the overhead data structure of Quigley, Appellants have not set
forth a particularized argument to show that effect. Further, we have
reviewed Appellants’ Specification and do not find a definition of
“combined overhead data,” let alone a definition that would preclude the
overhead data structure of Quigley.
CONCFUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1—5, 7, and 8 as
being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1—5, 7, and 8 are not patentable.
5
Appeal 2016-004439
Application 10/436,055
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—5, 7, and 8 is affirmed.
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).
AFFIRMED
6