Ex Parte Nandagopalan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 30, 201612533900 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 30, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/533,900 07/31/2009 51472 7590 10/04/2016 GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM) P.O. BOX 160727 AUSTIN, TX 78716-0727 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Saishankar Nandagopalan 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. BP7378 8497 EXAMINER BOKHARI, SYED M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 10/04/2016 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): MMURDOCK@TEXASPATENTS.COM ghmptocor@texaspatents.com bpierotti@texaspatents.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte SAISHANKAR NANDAGOP ALAN, CHRISTOPHER J. HANSEN, and VINKO ERCEG Appeal2014-000153 Application 12/533,900 Technology Center 2400 Before: ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. lVLA..NTIS l\1ERCii,DER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal2014-000153 Application 12/533,900 STATEMENT OF CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a rejection of claims 1- 20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The claimed invention is directed to a medium access controller (MAC) that is capable to be implemented within a communication device, and is operative in accordance with anyone of a number of capability sets, based on which capability set is enabled when implemented within a particular communication device. Enabling a capability of sets based upon one or more of a type of physical layer transceiver (i.e., PHY) with which the MAC interfaces (i.e., within the communication device). Abstract. Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. An apparatus; compnsmg: a medium access controller (MAC) that is operative in accordance each of a plurality of capabilities, one of the plurality of capabilities being selectable for use in the apparatus; and wherein: when the MAC is implemented within the apparatus, one of the plurality of capabilities of the MAC is enabled based on each of: a type of physical layer transceiver (PHY) with which the MAC interfaces; and a communication protocol by which the apparatus communicates with a communication network; and wherein: each of the plurality of capabilities of the MAC has a respective plurality of operational parameters by which the MAC can operate; the communication protocol employs carrier sense multiple access/collision avoidance (CSMA/CA) functionality adapted to arbitrate between a first request made by the apparatus 2 Appeal2014-000153 Application 12/533,900 to access the communication network and a second request made by at least one additional apparatus to access the communication network; and the MAC includes an optimization module that is operative to adjust at least one operational parameter based on a change of an operational condition of the communication network. REFERENCES The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on appeal is: Jeong Karaoguz Krahn Ho Mark Hamiti US 8,054,798 B2 US 2004/0199686 Al US 2008/0101320 Al US 2009/0141737 Al US 2010/0142458 Al US 2011/0090879 Al REJECTIONS The Examiner made the following rejections: Nov. 8, 2011 Oct. 7, 2004 May 1, 2008 June 4, 2009 June 10, 2010 Apr. 21, 2011 Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong. Claim 2 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong and further in view of Mark. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong and further in view of Karaoguz. Claims 4 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong and further in view of Krahn. Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong and further in view of Krahn. 3 Appeal2014-000153 Application 12/533,900 Claims 7-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong and further in view of Hamiti. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong. Claims 11-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong and further in view of Krahn. Claim 15 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong and further in view of Krahn. Claims 16-18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong and further in view of Hamiti. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong and further in view of Mark. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho in view of Jeong and further in view of Krahn. ANALYSIS We adopt the Examiner's findings in the Answer and the Final Action and we add the following primarily for emphasis. Appellants argue that there appears to be only one physical layer transceiver (e.g., one type of PHY) implemented within the Examiner-cited portions of Ho, and that there is no selection or enablement of one of the particular capabilities of the MAC sublayer 30 in Ho based upon a particular type of the PHY layer 20 (i.e., there appears to be only one type of PHY layer 20 in Ho's FIG. 1) (App. Br. 6). We do not agree with Appellants' arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that an apparatus (20) includes a MAC (30) operative in 4 Appeal2014-000153 Application 12/533,900 accordance with a variety of capabilities being used in the apparatus (20) wherein the MAC (30) is implemented within the apparatus (20) and one of the multiple capabilities is enabled based on the PHY-related parameters, including transmission mode, data rate, physical channel, and the communication protocol such as distributed reservation protocol (DRP) (see Ho paras. 18-19; Ans. 3--4). In other words, the Examiner broadly but reasonably interpreted that each set of different related parameters of PHY would constitute a different type of PHY. Accordingly, we affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 and for the same reasons the rejections of claims 2-20. DECISION For the above reasons, the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-20 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 )(iv). AFFIRMED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation