10841477 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 15, 2011)

Ex Parte Hu et al

Board of Patent Appeals and InterferencesNov 15, 2011

10841477 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 15, 2011)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS AND INTERFERENCES ____________________ Ex parte XU-HUI HU, YONG LIU, CHUN-HUI ZHU, and MYUNG-JONG LEE ____________________ Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and DEBRA K. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 2 Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) (2002) from a final rejection of claims 1-28 and 31-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). 1 We AFFIRM-IN-PART. Introduction According to Appellants, the invention relates generally to a wireless personal area network (WPAN), and more particularly, to an apparatus and a method of establishing a route from a source node to a destination node in the WPAN based on a tree topology (¶[0002]). STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary Claim Claim 1 is an exemplary claim: 1. A method for relaying a route request RREQ message by an intermediate node which is connected with at least one node following a tree route in a wireless communication system of a tree topology, comprising a destination node and a source node which sends the RREQ message to the destination node via at least one intermediate node, the method comprising: updating a first information for searching a backward route using a stored information when the RREQ message is received along a route other than the tree route; and transmitting the RREQ message containing the updated first information. 1 Claims 29 and 30 have been cancelled (Ans. 2). Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 3 References Larsson US 6,535,498 B1 Mar. 18, 2003 Makalic, SAN: Route Discovery and Maintenance, 2001. Admitted Prior Art (APA), Figures 1 and 2. Rejections Claims 1- 22, 26, and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. 2 Claims 1-22 and 32-33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Larsson. Claims 23-28 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by APA. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by Makalic. GROUPING OF CLAIMS (1) Appellants argue claims 1- 22, 26, and 27 as a group, addressing claims 1 and 12 separately and claims 26 and 27 on the basis of claim 26 (App. Br. 12-15). We address independent claim 1, 12, and 26 as the representative claims. We will, therefore, treat claims 2-11 as standing or falling with representative claim 1, claims 13-22 as standing or falling with 2 The Examiner’s Answer indicates that, instead of claims 1-28 and 31-33 listed in the Final Rejection, only claims 1-22, 26, and 27 are rejected under section 112 (Ans. 3). Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 4 representative claim 12, and claim 27 as standing or falling with representative claim 26. (2) Appellants argue claims 1-22, 32, and 33 as a group on the basis of claim 1 (id. at 15-17). We select independent claim 1 as the representative claim. We will, therefore, treat claims 2-22, 32, and 33 as standing or falling with representative claim 1. (3) Appellants argue claims 23-28 as a group on the basis of claim 23 (id. at 17-19). We select independent claim 23 as the representative claim. We will, therefore, treat claims 24-28 as standing or falling with representative claim 23. (4) Appellants argue claim 31 independently (id. at 19) and we will address claim 31 separately. We accept Appellants’ grouping of the claims. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ISSUE 1 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph: claims 1-22, 26, and 27 Appellants argue “the tree route” in the second instance refers to the antecedent tree route; a non-limiting exemplary embodiment is provided in the Specification and that should be used in interpreting “tree route”; and “an intermediate node” and “at least one intermediate node” are clearly used in light of the recitation (App. Br. 12-14). Appellants additionally argue the “comprising” terms have clear usage (Reply Br. 4). As to claim 12, Appellants admit “the tree route” lacks antecedent basis (Reply Br. 7). For Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 5 claim 26, Appellants assert it is possible that one node may both receive and then transmit the RREQ (Reply Br. 9). In response, the Examiner maintains it is unclear if the “at least one intermediate node” in line 4 of claim 1 has a relationship to “an intermediate node” recited in line 2 of claim 1 due to the unclear use of “comprising” in the claim (Ans. 10). Additionally, the Examiner finds Appellants’ term “tree route” is not defined in the claim and thus must be given its broadest, most reasonable interpretation (id.). The Examiner also finds the recitation of “the tree route” in claim 12 lacks antecedent basis (Ans. 11). As to claim 26, the Examiner finds that if it is determined that the RREQ message is sent from a node, it would be impossible for that same node to receive that RREQ message (id.). Issue 1: Has the Examiner erred in finding claims 1-22, 26, and 27 are indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112, second paragraph? ANALYSIS We agree with the Examiner that the recitation of claim 1 is indefinite. First, as the Examiner stated, “comprising” is indefinite as for the first use of “comprising,” it is unclear what element is comprising a destination and source node. Indeed, it is unclear if it is the tree route, wireless communication system, or tree topology that comprises the destination and source nodes. Since it is unclear what element comprises the destination node and source node, it is similarly unclear how the method recited is “for relaying a route request RREQ message by an intermediate node” but then “sends the RREQ message to the destination node via at least one Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 6 intermediate node” (see claim 1). Additionally, it is unclear in claim 1 how a “tree topology” is laid out, i.e., how more than one route exists between two nodes. Therefore, claim 1 is indefinite as are claims 2-11 based on their dependence from independent claim 1. Further as to claim 12, we agree with the Examiner that “the tree route” lacks an antecedent basis and thus, is indefinite (Ans. 11). Therefore, claims 13-22 are also indefinite based on their dependence from independent claim 12. Claim 26 recites “transmitting by the first device the RREQ message to a second device within the wireless tree-structure network…when it is determined that the RREQ message is sent from the descendent device of the first device, and that the destination of the RREQ message is … [not] the descendent device of the first device.” Appellants submit that in the claimed message processing method, “one node may both receive and then transmit the RREQ” (Reply Br. 8-9). However, the claim does not recite what element determines if the message is sent from a node and that the destination is not that node. Although this feature of the sending and receiving node being the same node may be unlikely to occur (if at all), the claim language is clear and thus, we find claim 26 is not indefinite. Claim 27, rejected for its dependence from claim 26, is therefore also not indefinite. Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 7 ISSUE 2 35 U.S.C. § 102(e): claims 1-22 and 32-33 Appellants argue their claimed invention is not anticipated by Larsson because Larsson does not teach or suggest any nodes in relation to a tree route (App. Br. 15). Additionally, Appellants contend Larsson fails to teach or suggest anything related to an intermediate node connected with at least one node following a tree route in wireless communication system but instead describes only star topology networks and “scatternets” (App. Br. 15-16). Appellants further assert the preamble should be given patentable weight since “the tree route,” is recited in the body of the claim (App. Br. 16). In response, the Examiner maintains Larsson discloses a route update in an AD-HOC network which is a network connection method that is most often associated with wireless devices and is the same as the claimed network; a tree topology network wherein the nodes are connected to form branches which construct a tree; and steps performed that are the same (Ans. 12-13). Further, according to the Examiner, “tree route” has not been defined by Appellants and thus, a broad, but reasonable interpretation is used (Ans. 13). Issue 2: Has the Examiner erred in finding Larsson discloses “an intermediate node which is connected with at least one node following a tree route in a wireless communication system of a tree topology, comprising a destination node and a source node which sends the RREQ message to the destination node via at least one intermediate node” as recited in claim 1? Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 8 ANALYSIS Appellants state “[h]owever, as a nonlimiting exemplary embodiment, a tree route indicates a pre-established route between nodes before establishing a route by use of RREQ and RREP messages according the on- demand scheme (paragraph [31] of the specification)” (App. Br. 13 and 17) (emphasis ours). Thus, Appellants have not provided a definition of the term “tree route” but instead, have provided a non-limiting exemplary embodiment. Additionally, Appellants argue “tree route” is a very specific term of art (Reply Br. 10), but provide no evidence to support this assertion. As a result, we interpret “tree route” using a broad, but reasonable interpretation of “a route in a tree.” This definition is not inconsistent with Appellants’ Specification as a pre-established route between nodes is still a route in a tree. As Appellants did not recite this limitation in the claim, as noted by the Examiner (Ans. 10-11), we will not construe tree route as urged by Appellants. We also find Appellants did not explicitly define “tree topology.” Appellants’ illustrative embodiments show various topologies (Figs. 3 and 7) and indeed, appear to have features of a mesh topology. The Examiner finds Larsson discloses a tree topology (Ans. 12) and Appellants have not provided any persuasive evidence or argument that none of the topologies described in Larsson is a tree topology. Additionally, Appellants have not provided any persuasive evidence or argument that the Examiner’s interpretation is inaccurate. Therefore, Appellants have not shown that Larsson does not describe the invention as recited in independent claim 1 or independent claim 12, not Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 9 separately argued. Dependent claims 2-11, 13-22, 32, and 33, not separately argued, fall with claims 1 and 12. Accordingly, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1-22, 32, and 33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Larsson. ISSUE 3 35 U.S.C. § 102(a): claims 23-28 Appellants assert their claimed invention is not anticipated by Appellants’ Admitted Prior Art (APA) because the description of Figures 1 and 2 found in the Specification are “silent as to performing any kind of discarding whatsoever” (App. Br. 18). The Examiner finds APA describes that the RREQ (route request) message is not retransmitted again but instead the RREP (route reply) message is transmitted, thus the RREQ is discarded because it is not rebroadcasted (Ans. 14). Issue 3: Does the APA disclose “discarding the RREQ message by the first device” as recited in claim 28? ANALYSIS Appellants have not provided a definition of “discarded” in their Specification. Therefore, we begin our analysis by looking to Appellants’ Specification for context. Appellants point to Step S414 in Figure 4 as illustrating the “discarding” limitation (App. Br. 7). This step, however, is labeled “DISCARD RREQ” with no further description. We observe Appellants’ Specification does state “[o]ther broadcast RREQ messages are Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 10 discarded. Thus, unnecessary RREQ messages are not transmitted and received” (Spec. 9, [40]). We therefore give “discarded” its broadest reasonable interpretation (In re Bigio, 381 F.3d 1320, 1324 (Fed. Cir. 2004) of “cast aside” and in light of Appellants’ Specification, “not transmitted.” APA states: According to the conventional algorithm, the N- [node without a routing table] in the ad-hoc network transmits the RREP message in reply to the RREQ message. The N-, although itself is not the destination node requested in the received RREQ message, transmits the RREP message according to the tree topology and its node characteristic. That is, since the N- does not have its routing table, the N- cannot store or look up the route information even after receiving the RREQ message, and since the tree topology only allows message transmission to an upstream node or a downstream node, further route search is not feasible. The RREP message from the node G is forwarded to the node A via the node B at step S 120. (APA Spec. 2, [06]) (emphasis ours). APA therefore describes that the RREQ cannot be further transmitted, i.e., the request is cast aside. Accordingly, Appellants have not shown the Examiner erred in finding APA discloses “discarding the RREQ message” as recited in independent claim 23. Dependent claims 24-28 were not separately argued and thus, fall with independent claim 23. Accordingly, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by APA. Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 11 ISSUE 4 35 U.S.C. § 102(b): claim 31 Appellants assert their claimed invention is anticipated by Makalic because Makalic fails to mention any discarding of the RREP packet or any packets whatsoever (App. Br. 19). The Examiner finds that Makalic discloses the RREP message is not retransmitted because the receiver node (node A) is the destination (Ans. 14- 15). Therefore, according to the Examiner, since Makalic describes not rebroadcasting/retransmitting the RREP message, Makalic describes discarding the RREP message (Ans. 15). Issue 4: Does Makalic disclose “discarding the RREP message” as recited in claim 31? ANALYSIS Makalic describes that a “[r]oute is successfully found when the RREP packet reaches Node A. Node A can now commence data transmission” (§ Processing Route Reply Packets (RREP)). Although Makalic discloses that the route is successfully found when the RREP reaches Node A and that Node A can now commence data transmission (id.), the Figure in Processing Route Reply Packets (RREP) section suggests the RREP is not further transmitted. Thus, Makalic does not expressly or inherently disclose that the RREP message is not further transmitted or rebroadcast and therefore, the disclosure is insufficient to sustain the Examiner’s rejection. “[A]nticipation of a claim under § 102 can be found Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 12 only if the prior art reference discloses every element of the claim . . . .” In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (citing Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GMBH v. American Hoist & Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1457 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Thus, Examiner erred in finding Makalic discloses “discarding the RREP message” as recited in claim 31. Accordingly, the Examiner has not erred in rejecting claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Makalic. DECISION The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 26 and 27 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph as being indefinite is reversed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-22 and 32-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Larsson is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 23-28 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as being anticipated by APA is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Makalic is reversed. Appeal 2009-011790 Application 10/841,477 13 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) (2010). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ELD