Ex Parte Monga et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 9, 201412096229 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2014) Copy Citation 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. 12/096,229 06/05/2008 Indermohan Monga NOR-130US 9902 32836 7590 12/10/2014 Schmeiser, Olsen & Watts LLP 5 MOUNT ROYAL AVENUE MOUNT ROYAL OFFICE PARK MARLBOROUGH, MA 01752 EXAMINER PREVAL, LIONEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2475 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/10/2014 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 INDERMOHAN MONGA, GARTH JENKINS, and HARISH SANKARAN ___________ Appeal 2012-009678 Application 12/096,229 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. WHITEHEAD JR., Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants are appealing the final rejection of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). Appeal Brief 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b) (2012). We affirm-in-part. Introduction The invention is directed to “a method for reliable transmission of sensor data and sensor commands.” Appeal Brief 4. Appeal 2012-009678 Application 12/096,229 2 Representative Claim (disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method for selectively multicasting sensor data for reliable transmission, the method comprising: receiving sensor data at a network access node; transmitting towards an aggregation node a plurality of data packets, each data packet having a redundant payload comprising the sensor data, a number of data packets being determined in response to at least one network parameter; forwarding a first one of the data packets received at the aggregation node to at least one application node; and deleting any of the data packets received at the aggregation node after the first one of the data packets. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Chan (US Patent Application Publication Number 2006/0256768 A1; published November 16, 2006). Answer 5–12. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed December 15, 2011), the Answer (mailed April 11, 2012), and the Reply Brief (June 11, 2012) for their respective details, we have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Appellants contend that Chan fails to anticipate the claimed invention because Chan does not disclose a “forwarding a first one of the data packets Appeal 2012-009678 Application 12/096,229 3 received at the aggregation node to at least one application node” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Brief 6–7. The Examiner finds Appellants’ Specification describes an aggregation node as a “node in communication with the network access node through a plurality of network paths.” Answer 10. The Examiner concludes Chan discloses a designation node that is equivalent to Appellants’ claimed aggregation node because Chan discloses multicasting and discarding additional copies of packets. Id. at 10–11. Appellants contend Chan only discloses that “the application or transport layer of the destination node filters or removes plural copies of received packets,” therefore, “merely establish[ing] that the destination node has an application layer.” Appeal Brief 6–7 (citing Chan ¶ 20). We do not agree with the Examiner’s findings and find Appellants’ contentions to be persuasive because claim 1 requires both aggregation and application nodes and Chan only discloses a designation node having an application layer. 1 Therefore, we reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of independent claim 1, as well as, dependent claims 2–10 and independent claim 20 commensurate in scope with claim 1. Appellants contend the arguments for claim 1 are also applicable to independent claims 11 and 13 because the claims are “similar in language to 1 “A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference.” Verdegaal Bros., Inc. v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., 814 F.2d 628, 631 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Appeal 2012-009678 Application 12/096,229 4 the language recited in claim 1.” Appeal Brief 8, 9. However, neither claim 11 nor claim 13 require both an aggregation node and an application node as claim 1 requires. Further, Appellants do not address the specific citations and merits of the Examiner’s anticipation rejection. See Appeal Brief 8–9. Therefore, Appellants argument does not show error in the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 11 and 13. 2 Consequently, we sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 11 and 13, as well as, dependent claims 12 and 14–19 not separately argued. DECISION The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 1–10 and 20 is reversed. The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claims 11–19 is sustained. 2 “A statement which merely points out what a claim recites will not be considered an argument for separate patentability of the claim.” 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements were not found in the prior art.”) Appeal 2012-009678 Application 12/096,229 5 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). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(f). AFFIRMED-IN-PART ELD Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation