Ex Parte Monga et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 11, 2016

12096238 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/096,238 0410212009
131442 7590 02/11/2016
RPX Clearinghouse, LLC
One Market Plaza, Steuart Tower
Suite 800
San Francisco, CA 94105
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Indermohan Monga
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.
NOR-136US 9973
EXAMINER
SISON, TIJNE Y
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2443
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
02/11/2016 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
GAUTAM KHERA
Appeal2014-002963
Application 12/096,238
Technology Center 2400
Before ST.JOHN COURTENAY III, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
KAMRAN JIVANI, Administrative Patent Judges.
JIV ANI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner's final rejection of claims 1-18, which are the claims pending in
the patent application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The present patent application relates to a dynamic sensor network
resolution and management service. Spec. 1:8-9.
1 Appellants identify Rockstar Consortium US LP as the real party in
interest. Br. 3.
Appeal2014-002963
Application 12/096,238
Claim 1 is illustrative (bracketed matter and emphasis added):
1. A method for registering a sensor in a sensor
network, the method comprising:
determining that data are being transmitted between
a sensor and a network access node over a
communications link;
receiving data transmitted from the network access
node over a network that indicates a sensor type for the
sensor and a number of sensors of the sensor type that
communicate with the network access node;
determining from the sensor type if the sensor is a
dynamic sensor; and
automatically assigning by a hardware registry
processor a unique registry name to the sensor based on a
name of the network access node, the sensor type and the
number of sensors of the sensor type [L 1] if the sensor is
not a dynamic sensor or is a dynamic sensor without the
unique registry name.
The Re} ections2
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) over Gelvin (US 6,826,607 Bl; pub. Nov. 30, 2004), Johnson (US
6,553,336 Bl; iss. Apr. 22, 2003) and Intel et al., -IPMI- Intelligent Platform
Management Interface Specification Second Generation v.2.0, 1-580 (May
5, 2005) ("IPMI").
Claims 2--4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gelvin,
Johnson, IPMI, and Birger (US 2009/0006840 Al; pub. Jan. 1, 2009).
2 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
rejection of claims 1-13 and 15-18 as failing to comply with the written
description requirement. Ans. 2.
2
Appeal2014-002963
Application 12/096,238
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gelvin,
Birger, IPMI, and Ariyur (US 2006/0211413 Al; pub. Sept. 21, 2006).
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gelvin and
Birger.
ANALYSIS
We have considered the Examiner's rejections in light of the
Appellants' arguments in the Appeal Brief as well as the Examiner's Answer
thereto. Appellants' arguments do not persuade us of Examiner error.
Rather, we agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings and
reasons to the extent indicated below. We further emphasize the following.
Claims 1, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-18
Appellants argue claims 1, 5-10, 12, 13, and 15-18 as a group. Br.
15. Appellants contend the Examiner errs because "Gelvin does not disclose
or suggest all of the claimed limitations of Appellants' claims 1-5, 12, 13,
and 15-18 either by itself or in combination with Johnson or IPMI." Br. 14.
More particularly, Appellants direct us to limitation LI and assert, "Gelvin
does not teach or suggest a method of managing a network of sensors that
can include a combination of static and dynamic sensors." Id. Appellants
further contend independent claim 15 recites limitations similar to limitation
L 1 of claim 1, and similarly assert Gelvin fails to teach such limitations. Br.
15.
The Examiner finds, inter alia, Gelvin teaches or suggests a network
of sensors including static and dynamic sensors (Final Act. 14--16) and
IPML teaches or suggests limitation L 1. Final Act. 19-20.
3
Appeal2014-002963
Application 12/096,238
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Gelvin does not
meet limitation LI because it is not responsive to the Examiner's findings.
The Examiner finds IPML, not Gelvin, teaches or suggests limitation L 1. Id.
Where, as here, a rejection is based on a combination of references, one
cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants' argument that Gelvin
fails to teach or suggest a network of sensors including static and dynamic
sensors for the following reasons.
We find, as an initial matter of claim construction, Appellants do not
define in the claims nor in the Specification the term "sensor." Rather, the
Specification provides non-limiting examples of the sensors including a
device that monitors temperature and a video camera. Spec. 1:16-18. We
do not read such non-limiting examples from the Specification into the claim
language. In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2004). Conversely, the Specification does define dynamic sensors as mobile
sensors and static sensors as stationary. See, e.g., Spec. 4:24--27, 6:2-7, and
6:20-25.
In light of the determinations above, we are not persuaded Gelvin fails
to teach or suggest a network of sensors including static and dynamic
sensors. Rather, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Gelvin teaches:
In particular, Gelvin teaches a system that
contain static sensors in the form of gateways acting
as waypoints that are fixed asset base stations
(static) and these gateways carry at least GPS
(static sensors) and gateways learn and record their
4
Appeal2014-002963
Application 12/096,238
position to allow its position to be recorded and
transferred to WINS NG nodes and also provide
arrival of time, routing, and destination information
to be recorded and transferred to passing WINS tag
(see at least Gelvin: col. 65, 11. 2-14).
Further, Gelvin teaches this system also
contain dynamic (mobile) sensors in various forms
including RFID tags which are Wireless Integrated
Network Sensor Next Generation (WINS NG)
nodes possible attached to an asset (see at least
Gelvin: col. 64, 11. 55---61 & col. 65, 11. 1---6) and
these WINS nodes (dynamic (mobile) sensors) that
are RFID tags utilize gateway (static sensor)
position as waypoints to track its moving position
and trace its moving path and carrying data among
waypoints (such as waypoint location-see at least
Gelvin: col. 65, 11. 2-14) while these WINS nodes
(dynamic (mobile) sensors) continuously or
periodically sense status, for example, temperature,
shock, vibration, motion, tip, light level, and
packaging opening and closing (see col. 64, 11. 25-
54 & col. 65, 11. 1-51).
Ans. 7-8. Appellants fail to explain persuasively in the record before why
the cited network of gateways (i.e., static sensors) and WINS NG nodes (i.e.,
dynamic sensors) would not teach or suggest to one of ordinary skill in the
art the claimed static and dynamic sensors, as those terms are broadly, yet
reasonably construed in light of the Specification.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
independent claims 1 and 15, together with dependent claims 5-10, 12, 13,
and 16-18, not separately argued.
5
Appeal2014-002963
Application 12/096,238
Claims 2--4
Claims 2--4 depend from claim 1. Appellants advance no further
arguments on these claims beyond those discussed above in the context of
claim 1. Br. 16. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection
of dependent claims 2--4, for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1.
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends ultimately from claim 1. Appellants advance no
further arguments on this claim beyond those discussed above in the context
of claim 1. Id. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
dependent claim 11, for the reasons discussed above regarding claim 1.
Claim 14
Independent claim 14 recites, in relevant part, "an application label
having a context for at least one application having access to the sensor
network; ... a plurality of sensors associated with the application label."
The Examiner finds Gelvin teaches or suggests "context for at least
one application having access to the sensor network" (Final Act. 3 7) and
Birger teaches or suggests "a plurality of sensors associated with the
application label." Final Act. 38.
Appellants contend the Examiner errs because Gelvin "teaches an
application label associated with connections between nodes, and not
associated with the node itself." Br. 17.
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because it is not
responsive to the Examiner's findings. The Examiner finds Birger, not
Gelvin, teaches or suggests each telemetry element (i.e., a plurality of
6
Appeal2014-002963
Application 12/096,238
sensors) associated with an identity identifier (i.e., an application label).
Final Act. 38. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's§ 103(a) rejection of
independent claim 14. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; In re Merck, 800 F.2d
at 1097.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-18.
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
7