Ex Parte Naito et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Sep 29, 2016

14072358 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 29, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/072,358 11105/2013
60803 7590
Paratus Law Group, PLLC
620 Herndon Parkway
Suite 320
Herndon, VA 20170
09/30/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masahiko NAITO
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.
1946-0181C 8978
EXAMINER
HUYNH, DUNG B.
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2469
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
09/30/2016 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 MASAHIKO NAITO and KA TSUTOSHI ITOH
Appeal2015-008038
Application 14/072,358
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
SHARON PENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-30. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as
failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 11-
12.
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 28-30 are
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Gurevich (US
Appeal2015-008038
Application 14/072,358
2007/0189249 Al; Aug. 16, 2007) and Stahl (US 2008/0002616 Al; Jan. 3,
2008). Final Act. 13-32.
Claims 4, 20, 23, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Gurevich, Stahl, and Okada (US 2009/0086697 Al; Apr. 2,
2009). Final Act. 32-35.
Claims 6 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Gurevich, Stahl, and Perraud (US 2009/0154426 Al; June 18, 2009). Final
Act. 35-37.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Gurevich, Stahl, and Wuidart (US 5,948,102; Sept. 7, 1999). Final Act. 37-
38.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Gurevich, Stahl, and Kumar (US 200710171910 A 1; July 26, 2007). Final
Act. 38-39.
We affirm.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants' invention relates to wireless communication. Abstract.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the disputed limitation
emphasized:
1. A wireless communication device incorporating a circuitry
configured to receive via an antenna at least one signal, the wireless
communication device forming part of a wireless transmission system, the
system including:
another device comprising:
a processing circuitry configured to:
receive a probe request from the wireless communication
device;
transmit a probe response; and
2
Appeal2015-008038
Application 14/072,358
randomize a duration for receiving the probe request,
wherein when the another device receives the probe request
transmitted by the wireless communication device, a negotiation is
performed between the wireless communication device and the another
device.
ANALYSIS
THE WRITTEN DESCRIPTION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 21-23
The Examiner finds claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description
requirement. Final Act. 11-12; see also Ans. 2---6.
Appellants argue that the proper interpretation of the claims is
supported by the original Specification. See App. Br. 14--15; see also Reply
Br. 4.
Appellants' after-final amendment to claim 21 was not entered by the
Examiner. Thus, claim 21 recites "the probe request is transmitted only
during the duration for receiving the probe request" and does not limit the
probe request to being transmitted by the wireless communication device.
Appellants' argument is not persuasive because as the Examiner finds
(Ans. 4--5) the originally filed Specification does not support the recited
claim language.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's written description rejection of
claim 21, and of claims 22 and 23, which depend from claim 21.
3
Appeal2015-008038
Application 14/072,358
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-19, 21, 22,
24, 25, AND 28-30 OVER GUREVICH AND STAHL
The Examiner finds Gurevich and Stahl teach all limitations of claim
1. Final Act. 14--16; see also Ans. 6-12. The Examiner finds Stahl teaches
the disputed limitation. Final Act. 15 (citing Stahl i-fi-122, 41 ).
Appellants argue the scan cycle time 16 and 26 may be randomized in
Stahl, but Stahl does not randomize the scan interval time 12 and 22 (Stahl
Fig. 2). Scan intervals 12 and 22 may be fixed or incrementally
increased/decreased, but they are not randomized. See App. Br. 15-18; see
also Reply Br. 5---6.
We do not see any error in the Examiner's findings. Nor do we see
any error in the Examiner's legal conclusion of obviousness.
In considering the disclosure of a reference, "it is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom." In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968). "A reference
anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention 'such that a skilled
artisan could take its teachings in combination with his own knowledge of
the particular art and be in possession of the invention."' In re Graves, 69
F.3d 1147, 1152 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (citing In re Legrice, 301F.2d929 (CCPA
1962)).
Stahl (i-f 22) discloses receiving the probe request.
Stahl (i-f 41 (emphasis added)) discloses:
Periodically switching may include switching into and out
of the parking channel according to fixed or variable time
schemes. Each of scan cycles 16 and/or 26, non-scan intervals
14 and/or 24 between scanning the parking channel, and/or scan
4
Appeal2015-008038
Application 14/072,358
intervals 12 and/or 22, may have fixed or variable durations of
time. Periodically switching need not imply switching according
to fixed or repeating time schemes. Periodically switching may
include switching using time schemes supported by
embodiments of the invention, for example, variable time
schemes. Time schemes or switching schemes may be fixed,
repeating, variable or random. STA 140 and STA 144 may
switch channels according to different time schemes, for
example, which may result in STA 140 and/or STA 144
communicating information sufficient for establishing IBSS
connection 20 within a desired length of time.
Claim 1 recites "randomize a duration for receiving the probe
request." An ordinarily skilled artisan could reasonably infer (Preda 401
F.2d at 826) Stahl's scan interval time 22 (Stahl Fig. 2) is disclosed as
having a randomized duration, particularly in light of Stahl's disclosures in
Figure 2 and paragraph 41 - Stahl (i-f 41) states that "scan intervals 12
and/or 22, may have fixed or variable durations of time"; Stahl (i-f 41) further
states that "[t ]ime schemes or switching schemes may be fixed, repeating,
variable or random." Put another way, Stahl's express disclosure of random
schemes, when taken in conjunction with a skilled artisan's knowledge of
well-known reasonable ways of receiving a probe request, is capable "of
placing the invention in the possession of those so skilled." Legrice, 301
F.2d at 944.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, as well as
claims 2, 3, 5, 7-10, 12-15, 17-19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 28-30, which are not
separately argued with particularity.
5
Appeal2015-008038
Application 14/072,358
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4, 20, 23, AND 26 OVER GUREVICH,
STAHL, AND OKADA
Appellants argue Okada does not overcome the deficiencies of
Gurevich and Stahl. App. Br. 18-19.
For the reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 20, 23, and 26.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 6 AND 27 OVER GUREVICH, STAHL,
ANDPERRAUD
Appellants argue Perraud does not overcome the deficiencies of
Gurevich and Stahl. App. Br. 19-20.
For the reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claims 6 and 27.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 11 OVER GUREVICH, ST AHL, AND
WUIDART
Appellants argue Wuidart does not overcome the deficiencies of
Gurevich and Stahl. App. Br. 20-21.
For the reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 11.
THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 16 OVER GUREVICH, ST AHL, AND
KUMAR
Appellants argue Kumar does not overcome the deficiencies of
Gurevich and Stahl. App. Br. 21-22.
6
Appeal2015-008038
Application 14/072,358
For the reasons discussed above when addressing claim 1, we sustain
the Examiner's rejection of claim 16.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-30 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)(l ).
AFFIRMED
7