Ex Parte Nykanen

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Nov 27, 2002

08784087 (B.P.A.I. Nov. 27, 2002)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not
written for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board.
Paper No. 24
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________
Ex parte PETRI NYKANEN
____________
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
____________
ON BRIEF
____________
Before FLEMING, LEVY, and BLANKENSHIP, Administrative Patent
Judges.
FLEMING, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal from the final rejection of
claims 13 through 50. Claims 1 through 12 have been canceled.
The invention relates to a method and machine for
establishing communication between an infra-red transmitting
device and a host using transmission protocols. See pages 1-3 of
the specification. In particular, the invention involves a
method and means to adapt the MAC rules of the IrLAP
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
2
specification to accommodate various IR transceiver devices with
or without media sense. See page 3 of the specification.
Independent claims 13 and 22 are reproduced as follows:
13. A method of defining an IrDA protocol stack having a series
of layers, for providing transaction support for IrDA-compatible
systems including at least a transceiver device and a host
adapted for IR transmissions therebetween, comprising the steps
of:
providing a Connectivity layer defining the operating
conditions for a physical IR link between said transceiver
device and said host;
providing an Ir Link Access Protocol (IrLAP) layer,
cooperating with said Connectivity layer, defining the
specification for establishing a physical IR link between
said transceiver device and said host, and comprising:

Media Access Control (MAC) rules for the IrLAP
specification defining the requirements before the
initiation of an IR transmission between said
transceiver device and said host;
Framing rules for defining the form of transmitted (Tx)
and received (Rx) IR transmissions between said
transceiver device and said host; and
connection-less data defining rules for the IrLAP
layer; and
providing a Link Management Protocol (LMP) layer,
cooperating with said IrLAP layer, defining the
specification for establishing service-to-service connection
binding, and division of a reliable IrLAP connection to
multiple channels, using frame-by-frame multiplexing, and
comprising:
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
3
connection-less data defining rules for the LMP layer;
and
connection-less Link Service Access Point (LSAP)
defining rules for establishing a service-to-service
connection by binding an LSAP of said transceiver
device with an LSAP of said host for transmitting and
accepting data in IR transmissions exchanged
therebetween.
22. In an IrDA-compatible system including a transceiver device
and a host, means for providing transaction support for IR
transmissions between said transceiver device and host by
producing an IrDA protocol stack having a series of layers, said
means comprising:
means for producing a Connectivity layer for defining the
operating conditions for a physical IR link between a
transceiver device and a host;
means for producing an Ir Link Access Protocol (IrLAP)
layer, cooperating with said Connectivity layer, for
defining the specification for establishing a physical IR
link between a transceiver device and a host, and
comprising:
Media Access Control (MAC) rules for the IrLAP
specification defining the requirements before the
initiation of an IR transmission between a transceiver
device and a host;
Framing rules for defining the form of transmitted (Tx)
and received (Rx) IR transmissions between a
transceiver device and a host; and
connection-less data defining rules for the IrLAP
layer; and
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
1 Appellant filed an Appeal Brief on January 18, 2000.
Appellant filed a Reply Brief on August 11, 2000. The Examiner
mailed an office communication on August 30, 2000 stating that
the Reply Brief has been entered and considered.
4
means for producing a Link Management Protocol (LMP) layer,
cooperating with said IrLAP layer, for defining the
specification for establishing service-to-service connection
binding, and division of a reliable IrLAP connection to
multiple channels, using frame-by-frame multiplexing, and
comprising:
connection-less data defining rules for the LMP
layer; and
connection-less Link Service Access Point (LSAP)
defining rules for establishing a service-to-service
connection by binding a transceiver device LSAP with a host
LSAP for transmitting and accepting data in IR transmissions
exchanged therebetween.
The Examiner does not rely on any references.
Claims 13 through 50 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as
being non-statutory subject matter.
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the
Examiner, reference is made to the briefs 1 and answers for the
respective details thereof.
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
5
OPINION
After careful consideration of the record before us, we will
not sustain the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claim 13 through 50.
The Examiner argues that Appellant's claims do not produce a
useful, concrete and tangible result. The Examiner argues that
the Appellant's claims are "merely protocols or protocol stacks
which can be considered as subroutines or programs." See page 4
of the Examiner's answer.
The Federal Circuit in State Street Bank v. Signature
Financial, 47 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1998) first identified the
three categories that are not patentable--laws of nature, natural
phenomena and abstract ideas. The opinion went on to note that
"subject matter is unpatentable only to the extent that it
represents an abstract idea" and is thus not "useful." Id. at
1600-01 & n.4. Later in its opinion, the court returned to this
issue: "[T]he mere fact that a claimed invention involves
inputting numbers, calculating numbers, outputting numbers, and
storing numbers, in and of itself, would not render it
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
6
nonstatutory subject matter, unless, of course, its operation
does not produce a 'useful, concrete and tangible result.'" Id.
at 1602. In this case, the court stated that "the transformation
of data, representing discrete dollar amounts, by a machine
through a series of mathematical calculations into a final share
price, constitutes a practical application of a mathematical
algorithm . . . because it produces 'a useful, concrete and
tangible result' . . . ." Id. at 1601.
Significantly, the court concluded its analysis as follows:
"The question of whether a claim encompasses statutory subject
matter should not focus on which of the four categories of
subject matter a claim is directed to . . . but rather on the
essential characteristics of the subject matter, in particular,
its practical utility." Id.
Appellant's claim 13 recites:
a method of defining an IrDA protocol stack having a
series of layers . . . including at least a transceiver
device and a host adapted for IR transmissions
therebetween comprising the steps of . . . providing
. . . connection-less Link Service Access point (LSAP)
defining rules for establishing a service-to service
connection by binding an LSAP of said transceiver device
with an LSAP of said host for transmitting and accepting
data in IR transmission exchanged therebetween.
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
7
We note that claim 37 recites a method similar to claim 13
for establishing a workable connection between the transceiver
and a host. Furthermore, we note that claim 44 is directed to a
system and claim 22 is directed to a machine for establishing a
workable connection between a transceiver and a host.
Appellant argues on page 2 of the Reply Brief that the cited
claim language requires establishing a workable connection
between the transceiver and host whereby data in IR transmissions
between them will be accepted. Appellant argues that obtaining
acceptance of the IR transmission is a useful, concrete and
tangible result.
We find that Appellant's claims recite subject matter that
is a practical application of linking a transceiver device LSAP
with a host LSAP for transmitting and accepting data in IR
transmission exchanged therebetween. Therefore, we find that
Appellant's claims 13 through 30 and 37 through 50 recite
statutory subject matter.
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
8
Now, we will turn to claims 31 through 36 which recite an
"IrDA protocol stack, for providing transaction support for IrDA-
compatible systems including a transceiver device and a host
adapted for Ir transmission therebetween, said protocol stack
being incorporated in at least one of said transceiver and host
. . . ." The Examiner appears to be arguing that the Appellant's
claimed invention is non-functional descriptive matter which is
non-statutory under § 101. See page 5 of the Examiner's answer.
Appellant argues that the claim is directed to a manufacture
incorporated in a transceiver and/or host. See pages 21 and 22
of the brief.
In In re Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1583, 32 USPQ2d 1031, 1034-35
(Fed. Cir. 1994), our reviewing court held that a claim setting
forth a computer readable medium encoded with a data structure
defining structural and functional interrelationship between the
data structure and the media which permits the data structures
functionality to be realized is statutory. Furthermore, we note
that in In re Lowry, the court noted that Lowry does not seek to
patent the data model in the abstract, but seeks to patent a data
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
9
structure that imposes a physical organization of data that
supports specific data manipulation functions. See, In re Lowry,
at 1034.
We note that Appellant's claim 31 is directed to a data
structure, an IrDA protocol stack, incorporated in at least one
of said transceiver and host that provides the function of
establishing a physical IR link between a transceiver device and
a host. Therefore, we find that Appellant's claims 31 through 36
recites an article of manufacture and thereby meets the
requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
10
We have not sustained the rejections of claims 13 through 50
under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's
decision.
REVERSED
MICHAEL R. FLEMING )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
STUART S. LEVY ) APPEALS
Administrative Patent Judge ) AND
) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP )
Administrative Patent Judge )
MRF/lbg
Appeal No. 2001-0161
Application No. 08/784,087
11
THOMAS P DOWD
PERMAN & GREEN
425 POST ROAD
FAIRFIELD CT 06430