Ex Parte Hansen et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 13, 2016

10857540 (P.T.A.B. May. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
10/857,540 05/28/2004
51472 7590 05/17/2016
GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM)
P.O. BOX 160727
AUSTIN, TX 78716-0727
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Christopher J. Hansen
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.
BP3517 3503
EXAMINER
LEE, ANDREW CHUNG CHEUNG
ARTUNIT PAPER NUMBER
2411
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/1712016 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):
MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM
ghmptocor@texaspatents.com
bpierotti@texaspatents.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHRISTOPHER J. HANSEN,
JASON A. TRACHEWSKY,
and TIMOTHY W. MARKISON
Appeal2014-002187
Application 10/857,540
Technology Center 2400
Before JASON V. MORGAN, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final
rejection (Final Act., Jan. 3, 2013) of claims 29-48. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Examiner rejects claims 32, 40, 44, 46, and 47, under
35 U.S.C. § 112, ,-i 2, as being indefinite. Final Act. 1-2.
Appeal 201-002187
Application 10/857,540
The Examiner rejects claims 29-43, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), as
being anticipated by Giaimo (US 2004/0090924 Al; May 13, 2004). Final
Act. 3-24.
The Examiner rejects claims 44-46 and 48, under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e),
as being anticipated by Rios (US 2004/0125775 Al; July 1, 2004). Final
Act. 24-26.
The Examiner rejects claim 47, under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), as being
obvious over Rios and Giaimo. Final Act. 26-28.
INDEFINITENESS REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 44 AND 46
Claims 44 and 46 are rejected as indefinite. Appellants argue the
Examiner "disregards the specific language of the claims." App. Br. 7.
Appellants also argue the Examiner presents a "gross generalization" (id. at
8) of the claimed invention as "merely wireless devices with interoperability
and intemetworking protocols communicating with each other" (id at 7
(quoting Final Act. 29)). For the below reasons, we concur with Appellants
as to claims 44 and 46.
As to claim 44, the Examiner finds: "One of ordinary skill in the art
does not sure who or which device or apparatus to make determination for
differentiating the protocol of wireless source station and wireless target
station." Final Act. 1-2. We concur with Appellants' argument insofar the
Examiner appears to contest the claim's breadth; that is, the Examiner
confuses breath with indefiniteness. See In re Gardner, 427 F.2d 786, 788
(CCPA 1970) ("We do not find any indefiniteness in any of the claims by
reason of their failure to name a host. They are merely broad in this respect .
. . . Breadth is not indefiniteness."); see also Reply Br. 4 ("complaint is to
2
Appeal 201-002187
Application 10/857,540
the breadth"). The Examiner does not identify, as is needed, a reason why
the claim scope cannot be ascertained sans a specified device for performing
the method.
As to claim 46, the Examiner finds:
[T]he claimed subject matter "differs from that of the wireless
source station" is as being indefinite and not clear. One of
ordinary skill in the art is not sure what or which "that" is
referring to. Do the applicants refer that to "frame" or
"protocol"[?]
Final Act. 2 (original emphasis). We concur with Appellants' argument
insofar the Examiner neglects the claim as a whole. See In re Fine, 240 F .2d
354, 356 (CCPA 1957) (claims are read "as a whole" for indefiniteness). By
considering the entirety of claim 46, and particularly expanding
consideration to claim 46 "the protocol of the at least one of the wireless
target stations that differs from that of the wireless source station"
(emphasis added), one can ascertain the at-issue "that of the wireless source
station" language references the protocol of the wireless source station.
For these reasons, we do not sustain the indefiniteness rejection of
claims 44 and 46.
INDEFINITENESS REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 32, 40, AND 47
Claims 32, 40, and 47 are also rejected as indefinite. For the below
reasons, we do not concur with Appellants' arguments regarding the
indefiniteness of these claims.
For claims 32, 40, and 47, the Examiner finds:
3
Appeal 201-002187
Application 10/857,540
LUJne of ordinary sKlll m the an 1s not sure 'backward
compatible' with what or which revision/release of the protocol
by verifying/identifying/comparing. For example, newer
CMDA standard is backward compatible with older, or for
another example, evolutionary standards (EDGE and CDMA)
that are backwards-compatible extensions to pre-existing 2G
networks as well as revolutionary standards that require all-new
network hardware and frequency allocations.
Final Act. 2.
Appellants' arguments are unpersuasive because the Examiner's
finding, unlike those for claims 44 and 45, does not contest a claim's breadth
or fail to address a claim as a whole. Rather, the Examiner reasonably finds:
a state (yes or no) of backwards compatibility between devices, standards,
etc., cannot be ascertained sans a definitively required interoperability ("with
what or which revision/release") and/or definitively permitted modification
(requiring a "pre-existing network" or permitting "new network hardware
and frequency allocations"). Final Act. 2.
Accordingly, as the claims lack such clarification and Appellants'
argument does not persuasively address the above finding, we sustain the
indefiniteness rejection of claims 32, 40, and 47.
ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 29-43 OVER GIAIMO
The Examiner rejects claims 29-43 as anticipated by Giaimo. Claims
29 and 37 are independent. Claims 30-36 and 38-43 respectively depend
from claims 29 and 37.
Generally speaking, claims 29 and 37 each recite a WLAN (wireless
local area network) access point receiving a source protocol frame
(formatted to a source station protocol) and reformatting the source protocol
4
Appeal 201-002187
Application 10/857,540
frame into a target protocol frame (formatted to a target station protocol).
Claim 29 is reproduced below with emphasis on the reformatting.
29. A method in a wireless local area network (WLAN) for
wireless communication between a plurality of wireless stations
of differing protocols in the WLAN, the method comprises:
determining whether protocols of wireless target stations of the
plurality of wireless stations differ from a wireless protocol of a
wireless source station of the plurality of wireless stations;
when at least one of the wireless target stations has a protocol
differing from the protocol of the wireless source station,
determining whether the WLAN includes an access point;
when the WLAN includes a wireless access point:
receiving, by the access point, a frame formatted in
accordance with the protocol of the wireless source
station;
reformatting, by the wireless access point, the frame into
a reformatted frame having another frame format in
accordance with the wireless protocol of the at least one
wireless target station that differs from that of the wireless
source station; and
transmitting, by the wireless access point, the reformatted
frame to the at least one of the wireless target stations.
Our below analysis references claim 29, but also applies to claim 37.
The Examiner relies on Giaimo's Figure 6 embodiment; mapping
Giaimo's client 64a, server 62, and client 64b respectively on claim 29's
source station, access point, and target station. Final Act. 3-4. In support of
the above mapping, the Examiner finds: clients 64a, 64b establish a direct
communication (ad hoc mode) by first indirectly communicating via server
62 (infrastructure mode) (id. at 4-5); and the indirect communication is
5
Appeal 201-002187
Application 10/857,540
carried to/from server 62 over respective 802. l la/b protocols of channels X
and Z (id. at 5-7). That is, the Examiner finds access point 62 receives a
source protocol frame over channel X and reformats the source protocol
frame into a target protocol frame for transmission over channel Z.
Appellants argue the Examiner "relies on the different 802.11
protocols of Giaimo ... to infer 'backwards' using Appellant's disclosure to
arrive at the invention of Appellant's claims." App. Br. 13 (citing Final Act.
5-6). Appellants further argue "Giaimo is silent to that which is relied upon
by the Office Action, such as the presence of frames, reformatting of frames
by an access point, et cetera." Id. at 14.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive insofar the Examiner fails to
establish Giaimo's cited communication of clients 64a, 64b via server 62
(infrastructure mode) entails reformatting of a source protocol frame into a
target protocol frame. Though Giaimo describes server 62 as a
multiprotocol access point, Giaimo does not describe clients 64a, 64b as
communicating via server 62 over different channels (i.e., over channels X
and Z when in infrastructure mode); much less as communicating over
different protocols. See Giaimo iii! 55-57 (cited infrastructure mode
communicating). And rather, Giaimo repeatedly describes clients
(generally) as communicating over the same channel regardless of their
communication mode. Giaimo iii! 11, 15, 20. For example, the "first aspect"
of Giaimo' s invention is described as follows:
The Smart Wireless Routing method includes the step of
employing an infrastructure mode for wireless communication
between a wireless AP and a first wireless client device on a first
wireless channel. In response to a need to communicate data
between the first wireless client device and a second wireless
6
Appeal 201-002187
Application 10/857,540
client device, a wireless communication with the second wireless
client device is selectively automatically enabled in an ad hoc or
infrastructure mode over a second wireless channel that is at a
different frequency than the first wireless channel.
Giaimo ii 15 (emphasis added).
In addition to the above communications between clients 64a, 64b, the
Examiner also relies upon Giaimo' s passing of media content from server 62
to clients 64a, 64b. Final Act. 5-7. Being first received from legacy access
point 60 (Giaimo ii 51 ), the media content is carried over different channels
and protocols; namely carried to server 62 over channel Y's 802.11 b
protocol and from server 62 over channel X's 802.1 la protocol (id. ii 46,
Fig. 6). However, the passing of media content is not described as
reformatting a source protocol frame (i.e., of legacy access point 60) into a
target protocol frame (i.e., of clients 64a, 64b ). Id. Giaimo rather explains:
Id.
[O]nce the desired media files for video and/or audio are stored
on client/media server 62, those files can be served up to media
clients 64a and 64b by enabling client/media server 62 to change
its protocols to act as a media server AP and employ full QoS
bridging from the legacy link to the local media clients that it
services either in infrastructure mode or ad hoc mode.
The Examiner does not establish that such receiving, storing, and
serving of media content entails reformatting of a received protocol frame;
as opposed to, for example, creating a new protocol frame from a
received/stored media file. That is, the Examiner fails to read claim 29's
reformatting on Giaimo' s server 62 receiving of media content over a first
protocol, storing of the content, and serving of the content over another
protocol.
7
Appeal 201-002187
Application 10/857,540
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 29-43 over Giaimo.
ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF
CLAIMS 44-46 AND 48 OVER RIOS
The Examiner rejects claims 44-46 and 48 as anticipated by Rios.
Claim 44 is independent. Claims 45, 46, and 48 depend from claim 44.
Like claim 29, claim 44 recites a WLAN access point that reformats a source
protocol frame into a target protocol frame.
The Examiner relies on Rios' Figures 3C-D embodiment; mapping
claim 44' s reformatting on Rios' routing of D 1 OT traffic and D2 traffic.
Final Act. 24-25. In support of the above mapping, the Examiner finds the
D 1 OT traffic and D2 traffic "are internally organized and routed" by a
multiprotocol access point. Id. at 25 (citing Rios ,-i,-i 12-13, 65-68, Fig. 4).
We note the D 1 OT traffic and D2 traffic are respectively carried over
802.1 la and b protocols. Rios ,-i,-i 38-39.
Appellants argue "Rios recites routing based upon the destination, and
does not teach reformatting." App. Br. 33. Appellants further explain:
Rios recites "packets appearing at DS R 202 are routed to the
appropriate DlOT TQ 209 or D2 TQ 212 portals, depending if
they correspond to associated 802.lla or 802.llb/g station
traffic, respectively." (Rios ,-i 0045). Rios cites routing;
however, the base claim relied upon relates to conditional
reformatting.
Id. at 32.
Appellants' arguments are persuasive insofar the Examiner fails to
establish Rios' cited routing ofDlOT traffic and D2 traffic entails
reformatting of a source protocol frame into a target protocol frame. The
8
Appeal 201-002187
Application 10/857,540
routing is performed by the multi protocol access point 200 of Rios Fig. 2.
Rios iii! 18, 40. As shown, the access point 200 does not route traffic
between the D 1 OT and D2 portals 207, 21 O; much less reformat an 802.11 a
protocol frame into an 802.11 b protocol frame. See id. at iii! 35-42
(describing Fig. 2).
For the foregoing reasons, we do not sustain the anticipation rejection
of claims 44-46 and 48 over Rios.
OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF
CLAIM 47 OVER RIOS AND GIAIMO
The Examiner rejects claim 4 7 as obvious over Rios and Giaimo.
Claim 47 depends from claim 44. The Examiner relies upon Rios as applied
against claim 44 (and upon Giaimo, additionally, as suggesting claim 47's
"backward compatibility"). Final Act. 26-27. Accordingly, because of the
above error with respect to claim 44, we do not sustain the obviousness
rejection of claim 4 7.
9
Appeal 201-002187
Application 10/857,540
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 44 and 46 under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 32, 40, and 47 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 29-43 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)
over Giaimo is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 44-46 and 48 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102( e) over Rios is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over
Rios and Giaimo is reversed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
10