Ex Parte KIM et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 17, 2016

13075787 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 17, 2016)

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.
13/075,787 03/30/2011 Do-Young KIM 678-4178 (P18147) 2374
66547 7590 03/18/2016
THE FARRELL LAW FIRM, P.C.
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
Melville, NY 11747
EXAMINER
MORLAN, ROBERT M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2475
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/18/2016 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte DO-YOUNG KIM, CLINT F. CHAPLIN, and EUN-TAE WON
____________________

Appeal 2014-005054
Application 13/075,787
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
AMBER L. HAGY, Administrative Patent Judges.

MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2014-005054
Application 13/075,787

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1–20. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

Exemplary Claims
Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphases added):
1. A method for transmitting a visibility frame according
to setting of a sleep mode in a Visible Light Communication
(VLC) device, the method comprising:
receiving a sleep mode request message; and
transmitting a response message indicating a sleep mode
period in response to the received sleep mode request message,
wherein the response message includes information
indicating at least one first window period in which data
transmission and reception are stopped, information indicating
at least one second window period in which data transmission
and reception can be performed in a normal state, and setting
information for determining whether to transmit a visibility
frame during at least a period of the sleep mode period.

Rejections
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 5–7, 11, 12, and 15–17 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Lee et al.
(US 2006/0030305 A1; Feb. 9, 2005) and Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art
(“AAPA”).1

1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 5–7, 11, 12, and 15–17.
Except for our ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further
herein.
Appeal 2014-005054
Application 13/075,787

3
The Examiner rejected claims 3, 4, 8–10, 13, 14, and 18–20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over various combinations of Lee,
AAPA, and other references.2

Appellants’ Contentions
1. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he sleep response message of Lee does not correspond to the
response message of the claimed invention since the sleep
response message disclosed by Lee does not include any
information indicating at least one first window period in which
data transmission and reception are stopped, information
indicating at least one second window period in which data
transmission and reception can be performed in a normal state.
App. Br. 5.
Lee merely describes a notification of the mobile station of a
periodic ranging cycle and an initial ranging time through a
sleep response message. In the first and second ranging
methods, the next periodic ranging time may be included in a
ranging response (e.g., RNG-RSP) message in a TLV form
(Type Length Value). In the third ranging method, the initial
periodic ranging time and the next ranging cycle may be
included in a sleep response (e.g., MOB-SLP-RSP), illustrated
in FIG. 9. That is, the sleep response message described by Lee
merely includes an initial periodic ranging time to perform
periodic ranging. Accordingly, the sleep response message of
Lee does not correspond to the response message of the claimed
invention since the sleep response message disclosed by Lee
does not include any information indicating at least one first

2 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 3, 4, 8–10, 13, 14, and 18–
20. Rather, Appellants address these claims only by referencing repeatedly
the arguments for the “independent claims” (App. Br. 6–9). Thus, the
rejection of these claims turns on our decision as to claim 1. Except for our
ultimate decision, these claims are not discussed further herein.
Appeal 2014-005054
Application 13/075,787

4
window period in which data transmission and reception are
stopped, and information indicating at least one second window
period in which data transmission and reception can be
performed in a normal state, as recited in Claim 1.
Reply Br. 2–3.
2. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because:
[T]he feature of setting information for determining whether to
transmit a visibility frame in Claim 1 is not disclosed in
paragraphs [0072] and [0074], and Appellants can find no other
section in Lee where such a disclosure or teaching is found.
App. Br. 5.
Further, the Examiner asserts that “the ranging of Lee and the
visibility frame of the instant application are synonymous and
serve the same purpose.” (see in page 4 of the Examiner’s
Answer). However, Appellants respectfully disagree.
Reply Br. 3.
Lee discloses in paragraph [0005] that during the sleep interval,
the mobile station scans neighboring base stations for a
handover and performs ranging for maintaining uplink
communications and a proper downlink coding type according
to signal quality. That is, there is no equivalency or similarity
between the visibility frame of the instant application and the
ranging of Lee.
Reply Br. 4.
3. Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) because “AAPA does not cure the deficiencies of
Lee.” App. Br. 6.

Appeal 2014-005054
Application 13/075,787

5
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. We
disagree with Appellants’ conclusions.
As to Appellants’ above contention 1, we disagree. Appellants
overlook that the “sleep response (e.g., MOB-SLP-RSP)” of Lee at
paragraph 82 cited by the Examiner is discussed in the Background section
of Lee.
The base station transmits to the mobile station a sleep response
(e.g., MOB-SLP-RSP) message in which the initial sleep
interval, the final sleep interval, the listening interval, and a
conversion start frame are set, thereby approving the transition
to the sleep mode.
Lee ¶ 14. We conclude an artisan would recognize Lee’s ranging time, as
argued by Appellants, to be in addition to the sleep interval (a first window
period), listening interval (second window period), etc. included in the sleep
response message.
As to Appellants’ above contentions 2 and 3, we disagree. Although
we agree with Appellants’ point that “there is no equivalency . . . between
the visibility frame of the instant application and the ranging of Lee” (Reply
Br. 4, emphasis added), we disagree with Appellants’ point that “there is no
. . . similarity between the visibility frame of the instant application and the
ranging of Lee” (Reply Br. 4, emphasis added). We agree with the
Examiner that an artisan would recognize the ranging (for signal
Appeal 2014-005054
Application 13/075,787

6
management) in the wireless environment of Lee as synonymous with the
admittedly known (see Appellants’ Fig. 2) visibility frame (for signal
management) in the Visible Light Communication environment of the
claimed invention. See Ans. 3. Although we find the Examiner’s analysis in
the Final Action implied an equivalency of Lee’s ranging and the recited
visibility frame, as Appellants recognized (Reply Br. 4), the Examiner’s
Answer clarified this analysis as being broadly based on finding the ranging
is synonymous with the visibility frame. See Ans. 3–4. With this analysis,
we agree as discussed above.

CONCLUSIONS
(1) The Examiner has not erred in rejecting claims 1–20 as being
unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
(2) Claims 1–20 are not patentable.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20 are 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED