Ex Parte Larsson et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2013

10596586 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte PETER LARSSON and NIKLAS JOHANSSON
____________

Appeal 2010-008968
Application 10/596,5861
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before MARC S. HOFF, ELENI MANTIS MERCADER,
and JOHN A. EVANS, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFF, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 8-23.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants’ invention is a multihop network that implements a
reactive routing protocol which enables nodes to continuously adapt network

1 The real party in interest is Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ).
2 Claims 1-7 and 24 have been cancelled.
Appeal 2010-008968
Application 10/596,586

2
resources in response to a topology change within the multihop network, so
as to optimize the performance of a connection between a source node and a
destination node. Resources that can be adapted include, for example, a
route, a channel, and/or physical layer parameters (Spec. 4). Active nodes
transmit a beacon that contains one or more measures of performance for the
connection (Spec. 8). At each neighboring node associated with the
connection between a source node and a destination node, a cost function is
calculated based on the measure of performance (Spec. 9). If it is determined
that the cost function can be improved if the neighboring node adapts at least
one resource, such adaptation is performed, to improve the cost function for
the connection between source node and destination node (Spec. 10).
Independent claim 8, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
8. A method for optimizing the performance of a connection between
a source node and a destination node in a multihop network, said method
comprising the steps of:
transmitting a beacon containing a measure of performance for the
connection from at least one active node associated with the connection
between the source node and the destination node;
receiving at least one of the transmitted beacons at least one
neighboring node associated with the connection between the source node
and the destination node;
calculating at said at least one neighboring node a cost function based
on the measure of performance in each received beacon;
determining at said at least one neighboring node whether the cost
function for the connection between the source node and the destination
node can be improved if said at least one neighboring node adapts at least
one resource in the multihop network; and
if yes, adapting the at least one resource to improve the cost function
for the connection between the source node and the destination node; or
if no, maintaining the at least one resource in the connection between
the source node and the destination node.
Appeal 2010-008968
Application 10/596,586

3

REFERENCE
Cain US 2003/0204625 A1 Oct. 30, 2003

REJECTION
Claims 8-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being
anticipated by Cain.

ISSUE
Appellants argue that Cain does not teach “transmitting a beacon
containing a measure of performance for a connection” (App. Br. 5). The
Examiner finds that Cain teaches the transmission of such beacons,
interpreting the claimed beacon as “any information that is transmitted to a
node . . . that will carry information about a metric” and that “a measure of
performance is a direct measure of the path metrics that are available and
used to make to [sic] calculations that will inevitably increase the
performance of the nodes/system” (Ans. 10).
Appellants’ arguments present us with the following issue:
Does Cain teach transmitting a beacon containing a measure of
performance for the connection from at least one active node associated with
the connection between the source node and the destination node?

PRINCIPLE OF LAW
“A rejection for anticipation under section 102 requires that each and
every limitation of the claimed invention be disclosed in a single prior art
Appeal 2010-008968
Application 10/596,586

4
reference.” See In re Buszard, 504 F.3d 1364, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(quoting In re Paulsen, 30 F.3d 1475, 1478-79 (Fed. Cir. 1994)).

ANALYSIS
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that Cain teaches transmitting a
beacon containing a measure of performance for the connection from at least
one active node associated with the connection between the source node and
the destination node.
The Examiner cites to paragraph [0053] of Cain, which discloses that
“link additions may also induce topology changes. . . . [N]ode 11 can use the
same procedures defined above to determine if it should switch its cluster
association . . . . [I]f node k has a cluster association metric that is better by a
specified threshold, the node may associate with the adjacent cluster” (¶
[0053]).
The “procedures defined above” are enumerated elsewhere in Cain.
Cain discloses that
node 11 may “listen” for the periodic CLNANN messages from
cluster leader nodes in neighboring clusters to identify potential
clusters that it may join. Further, it may listen for the periodic
HELLO messages from nodes 11 in the kN-hop neighborhood to
gather path metric information to all nodes in its kN-hop
neighborhood. Additionally, it may broadcast periodic HELLO
messages to all nodes in its kN-hop neighborhood. A cluster
association metric MmCA may then be formed for each adjacent
cluster leader m and the cluster leader node m, may be selected
with the minimum cluster association metric MmCA as the
cluster to join.
(¶ [0044]).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Cain “uses the beacon
that carries the metric of the nodes in order to perform a cost
Appeal 2010-008968
Application 10/596,586

5
function/calculation, to determine if the system will have better performance
upon a different configuration” (Ans. 9), and that “beacon containing a
measure of performance” may be fairly construed as “any information that is
transmitted to a node . . . that will carry information about a metric” (Ans.
10). We find that Cain’s CLNANN and HELLO messages correspond to the
claimed beacon containing a measure of performance.
We find that the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 8-23 under §
102 as being anticipated by Cain. We will sustain the rejection.

CONCLUSION
Cain teaches transmitting a beacon containing measure of
performance for the connection from at least one active node associated with
the connection between the source node and the destination node.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 8-23 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

babc