Ex Parte Malik et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 17, 201611848694 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 17, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 111848,694 08/31/2007 Ajay MALIK 126568 7590 06/21/2016 Zebra Technologies Corporation 3 Overlook Point Lincolnshire, IL 60069 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. SBL02834 4231 EXAMINER JONES, PRENELL P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 06/21/2016 ELECTRONIC 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. Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the following e-mail address( es): docketing@zebra.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AJAY MALIK and PUNEET BATTA1 Appeal2014-006599 Application 11/848,694 Technology Center 2400 Before CATHERINE SHIANG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision2 on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the non-final rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 12, 14, and 18.3 Non-Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Symbol Technologies, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Motorola Solutions, Inc. Br. 3. 2 Our decision refers to the Non-Final Office Action mailed July 9, 2013 ("Non-Final Act."); Appellants' Appeal Brief filed August 27, 2013 ("Br."); the Examiner's Answer mailed February 27, 2014 ("Ans."); and the Specification filed August 31, 2007 ("Spec."). 3 Claims 3-8, 10, 11, 13, 15-17, 19, and 20 are cancelled. Br. 11-12. Appeal2014-006599 Application 11/848,694 THE CLAHvIED TI'-JVENTION According to Appellants' Specification, "[t]he present invention generally relates to network communications, and more particularly relates to dynamically adjusting a transmission speed between wireless components of a network." Spec. i-f 1. Independent claim 1 is directed to a switch; independent claim 12 is directed to a system; and independent claim 18 is directed to a computer program product. Br. 11-12 (Claims Appendix). Claim 1 recites: An IEEE 802.11 wireless switch, comprising: a processor adapted to set a radio frequency (RF) transmission speed for a wireless client based on a location of the wireless client with respect to known physical barriers defined in a floor plan within an IEEE 802.11 environment, and a signal-to- noise ratio (SIN) of a radio frequency signal received by the wireless client. Br. 11. REJECTIONS ON APPEAL Claims 1, 12, 14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Lee (US 2006/0190974 Al, published Aug. 24, 2006) ("Lee"), Chung et al. (US 7,603,127 B2, issued Oct. 13, 2009) ("Chung"), and Wong et al., Robust Rate Adaptation for 802.11 Wireless Networks, MobiCom '06 (Sep. 23-26, 2006) ("Wong"). Non-Final Act. 4. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Chung, Wong, and Hoekstra et al. (US 2008/0039038 Al, published Feb. 14, 2008) ("Hoekstra"). Non-Final Act. 7. 2 Appeal2014-006599 Application 11/848,694 Claim 9 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (a) as being unpatentable over Lee, Chung, Wong, and Moon et al. (US 2004/0202113 Al, published Oct. 14, 2004) ("Moon"). Non-Final Act. 8. ANALYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1, 2, 9, 12, 14, and 18 in light of Appellants' arguments presented in the Appeal Brief. Appellants have not persuasively identified reversible error. We agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings, reasoning, and conclusions as set forth in the Non- Final Office Action (Non-Final Act. 3-9) and the Examiner's Answer (Ans. 2-14). We highlight the following for emphasis. Claim 1 Appellants argue, "[i]ndependent claim 1 recites an IEEE 802.11 network where a communication transmission speed is changed dependent on a location of a client with respect to physical barriers (e.g. walls) defined in a floor plan within an environment" and the cited combination of references fails to teach or suggest, "transmission rate changes based on known physical barriers in an IEEE 802.11 network." Br. 5---6 (emphasis added). Appellants attempt to distinguish claim 1 from the applied prior art on the basis that the applied art fails to teach or suggest changing or adjusting transmission speed. Br. 5-7. Appellants' argument is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. Claim 1 recites, "a processor adapted to set a radio frequency (RF) transmission speed." Br. 11. Appellants' Specification supports interpreting setting the transmission speed as different from changing or adjusting the transmission speed, in 3 Appeal2014-006599 Application 11/848,694 contrast to Appellants' argument that interchanges "setting" with "changing or adjusting". Compare Spec. Figure 3 (ref.# 176 ("SET SPEED") with ref. # 180 ("INCREASE SPEED") and ref.# 184 ("DECREASE SPEED")) and i-f 27 ("switch then sets transmission speed") with i-f 28 ("increase or decrease transmission speed"). Appellants' argument is not persuasive, because the argument is not accordance with the recited language of claim 1. Moreover, we have reviewed the Examiner's findings and the cited art in view of the language recited in claim 1. The Examiner's findings are well-supported by the cited art and we agree with the Examiner's obviousness conclusion. For these reasons, we affirm the rejection of claim 1. Claims 2, 12, and 18 For claims 2, 12, 14, and 18, Appellants rely on the argument presented for claim 1. Br. 7-8. We affirm the rejection of claims 2, 12, 14, and 18 for the same reasons as claim 1. Claim 9 Claim 9 recites, "a number of people in a conference using the wireless client for communication is included as a factor in determining transmission speed for the wireless client." Br. 11. The Examiner cites paragraphs 58 and 59 of Moon (Non-Final Act. 8; Ans. 14), which Appellants acknowledge, "describes changing transmission rates depending on the number of mobile devices present" (Br. 9). Appellants argue, "this is not the same as the number of people present using one device." Id. Appellants' Specification in Figure 1 depicts the wireless client as mobile 4 Appeal2014-006599 Application 11/848,694 phone or PDA (personal digital assistant) and the only disclosure related to claim 9 in paragraph 26 of the Specification states, "[ t ]he comparison algorithm may also factor in ... the presence of a number of people in a conference room at a particular time." The Examiner reasonably finds the number of mobile devices as taught by Moon teaches or suggests the number of people or users. Ans. 14; Non-Final Act. 8. Appellants present insufficient evidence explaining how or why the Examiner's finding is incorrect. See Br. 9. We agree with the Examiner. The obviousness rejection of claim 9 is in accordance with KSR Intern. Co. v, Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) which provides, "the [obviousness] analysis need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Appellants' argument is not persuasive and we affirm the rejection of claim 9. DECISION The rejections of claims 1, 2, 9, 12, 14, and 18 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation