Ex Parte Kish

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 29, 2014

11413293 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte WILLIAM KISH
____________

Appeal 2012-002968
Application 11/413,293
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges.

SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2012-002968
Application 11/413,293

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1-11, 24, and 25, which are all the claims pending in the
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

Representative Claim
1. An access point for enhanced coverage of a wireless local
area network, the access point comprising:
an antenna apparatus that provides a plurality of directional
antenna patterns for communication over the wireless local area
network; and
a processor that executes software stored in memory, wherein
execution of the software by the processor:
determines a first of the plurality of directional antenna
patterns,
effectuates transmission of a first broadcast
communication over the wireless local area network on the first
of the plurality of directional antenna patterns in accordance
with a communications protocol, the communications protocol
having a periodic broadcast interval used to enable association
of a station with the access point,
determines a second of the plurality of directional
antenna patterns, and
effectuates transmission of a second broadcast
communication over the wireless local area network on the
second of the plurality of directional antenna patterns in
accordance with the communications protocol, and the
transmission of the second broadcast communication is offset
from the transmission of the first broadcast communication by a
time interval less than the periodic broadcast interval.

Appeal 2012-002968
Application 11/413,293

3
Prior Art
Simpson US 2005/0128988 Al Jun. 16, 2005
Iacono US 7,206,610 B2 Apr. 17, 2007
Vaisanen US 7,333,460 B2 Feb. 19, 2008

Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-9, 11, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Iacono and Vaisanen.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iacono, Vaisanen, and Simpson.

ANALYSIS
Claim 1 recites “transmission of the second broadcast communication
is offset from the transmission of the first broadcast communication by a
time interval less than the periodic broadcast interval.” The Examiner finds
changing a beacon interval as taught by Vaisanen teaches offsetting
transmission of the second broadcast communication from the first broadcast
communication by a time interval less than the periodic interval. Ans. 5,
9-10. Appellant contends Figure 5A of Appellant’s Specification shows an
example of an offset by a time interval less than the periodic interval. Reply
Br. 3-4. Figure 5A shows the start of periodic interval 510 of access point
440B is offset from the corresponding start for access point 440A by a time
interval 520 less than the time of periodic interval 510. In contrast,
Vaisanen in Figure 2A shows the start of the second “a” signal is offset from
the start of the first “a” signal by a time equal to the periodic interval.
Similarly, Figures 2B and 2C show a second signal offset from the first
signal by a time interval equal to the periodic interval of the signals.
Appeal 2012-002968
Application 11/413,293

4
Although the scope of “offset . . . by a time interval less than the
periodic broadcast interval” encompasses a time interval of zero,1 the
Examiner has not persuasively explained how the combination of Iacono and
Vaisanen teaches “transmission of the second broadcast communication is
offset from the transmission of the first broadcast communication by a time
interval less than the periodic broadcast interval” as recited in claim 1.
Independent claim 6 contains a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1
for which the rejection fails.
We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-11, 24, and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.

DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Iacono and Vaisanen is reversed.
The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Iacono, Vaisanen, and Simpson is reversed.

REVERSED

msc

1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether
the claimed offset encompasses the teaching of Figure 4B of U.S. Patent
Publication 2004/0171407 to Ninomiya, which shows simultaneously
broadcasting odd numbered sector communications, such that the “offset” of
the sector 3 communication from the sector 1 communication is zero, or “a
time interval less than the periodic broadcast interval.”