11621973 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

Ex Parte LI et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 30, 2014

11621973 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 30, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JUNYI LI, RAJIV LAROIA, XINZHOU WU, and TOM RICHARDSON ____________________ Appeal 2011-009475 Application 11/621,973 Technology Center 2600 ____________________ Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-009475 Application 11/621,973 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1-42. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. The claims are directed to encoding beacon signals to provide identification in peer-to-peer communication. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method that facilitates operating a wireless terminal in a peer-to-peer network, comprising: receiving a sequence of first signals across a series of peer discovery intervals, wherein the first signals are generated by a disparate wireless terminal using a predetermined hash function to which wireless terminals in the peer-to-peer network abide; and deriving an identifier from the sequence of first signals across the series of peer discovery intervals. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Cain Laroia Bartas Sharma Oprescu-Surcobe Shattil US 2003/0179756 A1 US 2004/0109432 A1 US 2005/0060535 A1 US 2005/0226207 A1 US 2006/0251033 A1 US 2008/0075033 A1 Sep. 25, 2003 Jun. 10, 2004 Mar. 17, 2005 Oct. 13, 2005 Nov. 9, 2006 Mar. 27, 2008 Appeal 2011-009475 Application 11/621,973 3 REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Claims 1, 13, 32, and 39-42 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Oprescu-Surcobe. Claims 2, 14, 25, and 33 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprescu-Surcobe and Bartas. Claims 3, 4, 15, 16, 34, and 35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprescu-Surcobe and Sharma. Claims 5, 9, 10, 17, 21, 22, 36, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprescu-Surcobe, Sharma, and Laroia. Claims 6-8, 18-20, and 37 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprescu-Surcobe, Sharma, Laroia, and Cain. Claims 11 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprescu-Surcobe and Shattil. Claims 23 and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprescu-Surcobe, Sharma, Laroia, and Shattil. Claims 26 and 27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprescu-Surcobe, Bartas, and Sharma. Claims 28 and 30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprescu-Surcobe, Bartas, Sharma, and Laroia. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprescu-Surcobe, Bartas, Sharma, Laroia, and Cain. Claim 31 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Oprescu-Surcobe, Bartas, and Shattil. Appeal 2011-009475 Application 11/621,973 4 ANALYSIS The Anticipation Rejection Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Oprescu- Surcobe describes every limitation including “receiving a sequence of first signals across a series of peer discovery intervals, wherein the first signals are generated by a disparate wireless terminal using a predetermined hash function to which wireless terminals in the peer-to-peer network abide” (Ans. 3-4). Appellants contend that Oprescu-Surcobe’s ad-hoc group is not a peer-to-peer network and that the RAN [radio access network] controller that performs the signaling in Oprescu-Surcobe is not a “wireless terminal” as recited in claim 1 (Br. 11). We agree with Appellants. Oprescu-Surcobe describes the following: Operation of various embodiments in accordance with the present invention occur substantially as follows. In general, the various embodiments involve signaling an ad-hoc group of mobile units (MUs). The group signaled is ad-hoc in the sense that the members may only be associated or related to one another for the purpose of this signaling. (Oprescu-Surcobe, ¶ 0020). Thus, the ad-hoc group is formed for the purpose of specific signaling to the group rather than for peer-to-peer communications within the group. Moreover, Oprescu-Surcobe describes that it is the RAN controller, not a mobile unit, that performs the signaling: RAN controller 125 derives a MUGI [mobile unit group identifier] by combining individual MUIs of targeted MUs (such as MU 101) for which signaling awaits transmission. RAN controller 125 then transmits, via transceiver 127 and channel group 111, combined signaling comprising the derived MUGI. Appeal 2011-009475 Application 11/621,973 5 (Oprescu-Surcobe, ¶ 0030). Accordingly, we find that Oprescu-Surcobe does not describe “receiving a sequence of first signals across a series of peer discover intervals, wherein the first signals are generated by a disparate wireless terminal” as recited in claim 1. We are therefore constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1, and claims 13, 32, and 39-42 which contain similar limitations and have the same deficiency in the anticipation rejection. The Obviousness Rejections Regarding independent claim 25, the Examiner relies on Oprescu- Surcobe for disclosing a similar feature to that discussed above regarding claim 1, namely, “means for receiving a sequence of signals across a series of peer discovery intervals, the signals being generated by a disparate wireless terminal” (Ans. 6). The Examiner does not show that the Bartas reference, which is also relied upon for rejecting claim 25 (Ans. 6-7), cures the deficiency of Oprescu-Surcobe discussed above. We are therefore constrained by the record to find the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 25 for the same reasons as claim 1. Moreover, the Examiner does not show how any of the additional references relied upon for rejecting the various dependent claims cure the deficiency of Oprescu-Surcobe mentioned above. We therefore also do not sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-12, 14-24, 26-31, and 33-38. CONCLUSIONS Under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 13, 32, and 39-42. Appeal 2011-009475 Application 11/621,973 6 Under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2-12, 14-31, and 33-38. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-42 is reversed. REVERSED msc