Ex Parte Niedzwiecki et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 19, 2017

12742686 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 19, 2017)

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.
12/742,686 05/13/2010 Joshua D Niedzwiecki Cl 16/US 7845
114420 7590 04/21/2017
Collision Communications, Inc.
20 Depot Street
Suite 2 A
Peterborough, NH 03458
EXAMINER
CEHIC, KENAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/21/2017 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):
uspto.correspondence@sceneralabs.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOSHUA D. NIEDZWIECKI and BRANDON P. HOMBS
Appeal 2015-002401
Application 12/742,6861
Technology Center 2400
Before THU A. DANG, TERRENCE W. McMILLIN, and
MELISSA A. HAAPALA, Administrative Patent Judges.
McMILLIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1—21. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 3 5
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Collision
Communication, Inc. (App. Br. 3).
Appeal 2015-002401
Application 12/742,686
REJECTIONS ON APPEAL
Claims 1—11, 13, 14, and 16—21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Brommer (US 2006/0114826 Al,
published June 1, 2006).
Claim 12 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brommer and Dunyak et al. (US 2006/01040259 Al,
published June 29, 2006).
Claim 15 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Brommer and Hoffberg (US 2007/0087756 Al, published
Apr. 19, 2007).
THE CLAIMED INVENTION
According to the Specification, “the invention relates to digital
communication systems, and more particularly to ad hoc wireless multiuser
digital communication systems.” Spec. 13. Independent claims 1, 17, 19,
and 21 are directed to methods. App. Br. 15, 17—18.
Claim 1 recites (formatting added):
1. A method for enabling a receiving node to
distinguish information simultaneously received from a
plurality of transmitting nodes on a shared communication
channel of a wireless digital network, the method comprising:
providing a plurality of parameter channels on the
network in addition to the shared communication channel;
requiring each transmitting node to transmit a parameter­
estimating signal on an unshared said parameter channel;
detecting the parameter-estimating signals on the
unshared parameter channels and estimating therefrom at least
one unique signal parameter for each of the transmitting nodes;
and
detecting and distinguishing the information
simultaneously received from each of the transmitting nodes
2
Appeal 2015-002401
Application 12/742,686
according to their respective said unique estimated signal
parameters.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue claim 1 is allowable. App. Br. 9-12. Appellants
also argue that independent claims 17, 19, and 21 recite commensurate
limitations and are allowable for the same reasons as claim 1. Id. at 12—13.
And, Appellants argue the dependent claims are allowable for the same
reasons. Id. at 13. We shall treat claims 1, 17, 19, 21, and claims 2—11, 13,
14, 18, and 20 depending therefrom as a single group and make our decision
based on our determination as to representative claim 1. 37 C.F.R. §
41.37(c)(iv).
Appellants argue that Brommer does not disclose, “providing a
plurality of parameter channels on the network in addition to the shared
communication channel” or “requiring each transmitting node to transmit a
parameter-estimating signal on an unshared said parameter channel” as
recited in claim 1. App. Br. 9—12. Specifically, Appellants argue,
“Brommer does not disclose transmitting on an unshared channel.” App. Br.
10. See also Reply Br. 4—5.
In response, the Examiner relies on paragraphs 7, 11, 79, 83, 84, and
89 of Brommer as disclosing transmission of signals on unshared channels.
Ans. 5—6. See also Final Act. 14.
We have reviewed the cited paragraphs of Brommer and do not agree
with the Examiner that they disclose transmitting on an unshared channel, as
required by claim 1. Paragraph 11 of Brommer under the heading “Brief
Summary of the Invention” states (emphasis added):
One embodiment of the present invention provides a
method for polling and scheduling in a multiuser network that
3
Appeal 2015-002401
Application 12/742,686
includes a plurality of bandwidth efficient modems configured in
accordance with the principles of the present invention, with at
least one modem designated as a polling point coordinator access
point (AP) element. The method includes indicating the
beginning of a contention-free period, and simultaneously
transmitting on a single channel a first set of polling signals.
Each polling signal corresponds to a particular terminal included
in a first set of terminals included in the network. The method
proceeds with receiving two or more simultaneous responses
from the first set of polled terminals, and recovering each of these
two or more simultaneous responses using co-channel
demodulation capabilities of the AP element. The method may
further include transmitting clear-to-send messages to any
terminals requesting to send data, as indicated by received
responses. Note that when the receiving modems contain
multiuser receivers (MUD enabled), the AP element schedules
multiple interfering data transmissions in the same channel,
exploiting the ability of multiuser receivers to demodulate
signals in the presence of interference from other transmitters
using the same channel.
Brommer, 111.
The other cited paragraphs in Brommer are in accordance with the
disclosure in paragraph 11 of a single, shared channel for transmission of
signals. Brommer, || 7, 79, 83, 84, and 89.
Based on this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 102 rejection of claim 1 and claims 2—11, 13, 14, and 16—21 as
anticipated by Brommer.
The Examiner does not identify how Dunyak and Hoffberg cure the
deficiencies of Brommer. Accordingly, we are also constrained to reverse
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claim 12 over Brommer in
further view of Dunyak ; and of claim 15 over Brommer in further view of
Hoffberg.
4
Appeal 2015-002401
Application 12/742,686
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1—21 is reversed.
REVERSED
5