Ex Parte Oksman et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 9, 2018

11732968 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 9, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
11/732,968 04/05/2007
18052 7590 08/13/2018
Eschweiler & Potashnik, LLC
Rosetta Center
629 Euclid Ave., Suite 1000
Cleveland, OH 44114
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Vladimir Oksman
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.
KRAUP210US 4178
EXAMINER
CRUTCHFIELD, CHRISTOPHER M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/13/2018 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):
docketing@eschweilerlaw.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VLADIMIR OKSMAN and AXEL CLAUSEN
Appeal2017-009919 1
Application 11/732,968
Technology Center 2400
Before: MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SAADAT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1, 4--8, 10, 11, 13-16, 18-22 and 24--30, which are
all the pending claims in this application. 2 We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Lantiq Beteiligungs -
GmbH & Co. KG. App. Br. 1.
2 Claims 2-3, 9, 12, 17 and 23 are canceled. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2017-009919
Application 11/732,968
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants' disclosure relates to a communication system including a
central node coupled to a communication channel and configured to
individually communicate with a number of network nodes over a frequency
range. See Spec. 3:15-17.
Claim 1 is illustrative and reads as follows:
1. A communication network, comprising:
a central node configured to allocate bandwidth at which
data is transferred to and from initial network nodes over a
communication channel according to an initial frequency band
plan, the initial frequency band plan comprising:
a number of dedicated frequencies associated with
the respective initial network nodes; and
a common frequency band on which the central
node and initial network nodes communicate, wherein
communication over the common frequency band
includes a number of time windows that are respectively
and uniquely associated with the number of initial
network nodes; and
wherein the central node is further configured to
reallocate the bandwidth according to a modified frequency
band plan to account for a subsequent network node requesting
access to the communication network,
wherein frequencies of the common frequency band are
interspersed with the dedicated frequencies, or
wherein the frequencies of the common frequency band
are all above the dedicated frequencies.
The Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1, 4--7, 16, 18-22, and 24--29 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monk et al. (US 8,085,802 Bl; issued
2
Appeal2017-009919
Application 11/732,968
Dec. 27, 2011) ("Monk"), Hwang (US 6,501,791 Bl; issued Dec. 31, 2002),
and Laroia et al. (US 2002/0196731 Al; published Dec. 26, 2002) ("Laroia
I"). See Final Act. 3-32.
Claims 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Monk, Hwang, and Boate et al. (US 2006/0290519 Al;
published Dec. 28, 2006) ("Boate"). See Final Act. 32-37.
Claims 11, 14, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as
being unpatentable over Monk, Hwang, Boate, and Horton (US 5,805,203;
issued Sept. 8, 1998). See Final Act. 37--45.
Claim 13 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Monk, Hwang, Boate, and Cioffi et al. (US 7,079,549 B2;
issued July 18, 2006) ("Cioffi"). See Final Act. 46--4 7.
Claim 30 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as being
unpatentable over Monk, Hwang, Laroia I, and Laroia et al. (US
2002/0044524 Al; published Apr. 18, 2002) ("Laroia II"). See Final Act.
47--48.
Prior Board's Decision on Appeal
In the Decision on Appeal dated December 1, 2015 ("Decision"), we
affirmed the rejection of claims 1, 4--8, 10, 11, 13-16, 18-22, and 24--30 as
being unpatentable over Monk and Hwang alone or in combination with the
other applied prior art. The discussion of the teachings and the combination
of Monk in view of Hwang, as applied to claim 1 on appeal is substantially
similar to those presented for claim 1 in the prior Decision. To the extent
Appellants' arguments are similar to those presented in the prior Decision,
we will not repeat our analysis and will refer to the prior Decision.
3
Appeal2017-009919
Application 11/732,968
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner relies on Monk for disclosing the
recited communication network having a central node and an initial
frequency band plan comprising a common frequency band that includes a
number of time windows. Final Act. 3--4. The Examiner further relies on
Hwang as disclosing the recited initial frequency band plan also comprising
"a number of dedicated frequencies associated with the respective initial
[network] nodes." Final Act. 5. With respect to the reason for the proposed
combination, the Examiner finds as follows:
Therefore, since Hwang discloses the use of a common
control frequency band and a variable number of data frequency
bands that are assigned to each node based on the total number
of nodes in the network, it would have been obvious to a person
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to
combine the common and dedicated frequency bands of Hwang
with the system of Monk by using the TDMA common
frequency band of Hwang to communicate control and
signaling information with each node, as taught by Hwang and
Monk, while maintaining dedicated frequency bands with
bandwidth based on the number of nodes in the network for
data communications with each node by the central controller
and other peer nodes, as taught by Hwang. The motive to
combine is to allow each node to transmit simultaneously to
itself or other nodes without colliding with the transmissions of
other nodes.
Final Act. 5-6.
By presenting an argument that was determined to be untimely and
was therefore not considered in our Decision, Appellants contend "[ w ]hile
Monk does state that the network 300 may use multiple frequencies, all the
subsequent examples presume the entire network communicates on a single
frequency with communication to different devices occurring on the same,
4
Appeal2017-009919
Application 11/732,968
single frequency, but in differing time slots." App. Br. 6 ( citing Monk Col.
7, lines 55---60). Appellants specifically argue Monk's disclosure "precludes
a number of dedicated frequencies associated with the various initial
network nodes" because Monk performs all communication between the
various nodes on one single frequency with time slot assignments unique to
the nodes. Id. Appellants assert "Monk fails to disclose a central node that
configures bandwidth according to an initial frequency plan comprising a
number of dedicated frequencies associated with the initial network
nodes and a common frequency band on which the central nodes and all the
initial network nodes communicate." Id. Additionally, Appellants argue
that the proposed combination does not provide the missing teaching of
Monk and thus, fails to teach or suggest the subject matter of claim 1. Id.
In response, the Examiner explains as follows:
This base system of Monk teaches using a common timeslot
based (i.e. TDM) frequency channel for the communication of
the control information and is then combined with the teachings
of the system of Hwang, which discloses a number of dedicated
frequencies associated with respective initial network nodes
allowing for reallocation of the frequencies with entry of an
new node [i.e. a modified frequency band plan], with a separate
shared channel for the control information, but not that the
control channel could be a common TOM/timeslot based
channel (which is taught by Monk) to form a system with a
common TOM/timeslot based control channel and dedicated
frequencies associated with the initial network nodes, as
discussed, for example, in the combination of Monk with
Hwang, in claim 1, supra. (note also that the system of Monk
teaches that the common channel has dedicated timeslots for
each initial node and allowing for a modified frequency band
plan in which the single frequency band is reallocated with
different timeslots for newly joined nodes, but it is not needed
for the combination with the system of Hwang, as Hwang also
teaches these elements).
5
Appeal2017-009919
Application 11/732,968
Ans. 49--50 (emphasis added).
Based on a review of Monk, we are persuaded by Appellants'
contention that Monk does not disclose the recited central node that is
configured to allocate bandwidth used for communication between initial
network nodes "according to an initial frequency plan" because Monk is
concerned with using a single frequency for communicating to different
devices. Id. As further pointed out by Appellants (Reply Br. 2), Monk lacks
any teachings related to a central node that allocates bandwidth to network
nodes. That is, using a single frequency, Monk allocates time slots and has
no arrangement in a TDD system to use the teachings of Hwang for using
different frequencies for those nodes.
Based on our analysis above, we are persuaded of Examiner error in
determining that Monk, as modified by Hwang and Laroia, renders obvious
the subject matter of claim 1.
With respect to claim 8 we reach the opposite conclusion because
claim 8 does not recite an initial frequency band plan that comprises "a
number of dedicated frequencies associated with the respective initial
network nodes."
CONCLUSION
For the reasons discussed supra we are persuaded of Examiner error
in rejecting independent claim 1. The Examiner has not identified any
teachings in the other applied prior art that would make up for the above-
mentioned deficiency. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of
independent claim 1, independent claims 16, 22, and 25 which recite similar
limitations, as well as claims 4--7, 18-21, 24, and 26-30 dependent
6
Appeal2017-009919
Application 11/732,968
therefrom. However, we sustain the rejection of claim 8, as well as claims
10, 11, 14, and 15, which are not argued separately.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 8,
10, 11, 14, and 15.
We reverse the Examiner's 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1,
4--7, 16, 18-22, and 24--30.
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-IN-PART
7