Ex Parte Pawar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 13, 2016

12146887 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 13, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/146,887 06/26/2008
28005 7590 06/15/2016
SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hemanth Balaji Pawar
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.
5617 5968
EXAMINER
NAJEE-ULLAH, TARIQ S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/15/2016 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):
6450patdocs@sprint.com
steven.j.funk@sprint.com
docketing@mbhb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HEMANTH BALAJI PAW AR, SHILP A KOWDLEY SRINIV AS,
ANOOP GOY AL, BHAGW AN KHANKA, and
DUANE ANTHONY TOMKA
Appeal2014-003891
Application 12/146,887
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON REQUEST FOR REHEARING
Appeal 2014-003891
Application 12/146,887
Appellants filed a Request for Rehearing under 37 C.F.R. §
41.52(a)(l) ("Request") on May 20, 2016, for reconsideration of our
Decision mailed March 22, 2016 ("Decision"). The Decision affirmed the
Examiner's rejections of claims 1-24. We reconsider our decision in light of
Appellants' Request for Rehearing, but we decline to change the Decision.
Appellants contend that Larsson does not teach an access node that
decides to transmit an aggregated acknowledgement message to all of the
client nodes only when packets have been received from all of the client
nodes, and decides to transmit individual messages only when packets have
not been received from all of the client nodes, as claimed. Request 3--4.
As we discussed in our Decision, Appellants have not provided
persuasive evidence to show determining whether packets from each client
were received, then transmitting an aggregated acknowledgement message if
so or individual acknowledgment messages if not, was "uniquely
challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" who can
determine whether packets were received, then transmit either the
aggregated or individual acknowledgement messages taught by Larsson.
See Decision, 4--5 (citing Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485
F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550
U.S. 398, 419 (2007))).
We find Appellants' contention restates the arguments presented in
Appellants' briefing as to alleged errors in the Examiner's fact finding.
Appellants' contentions were addressed in our Decision; we will not repeat
our findings and conclusions here. Appellants have failed to show any
matter that was misapprehended or overlooked by the Board in rendering our
2
Appeal 2014-003891
Application 12/146,887
Decision. We find Appellants' arguments unpersuasive for the reasons
given in our prior Decision. We decline to change our prior Decision.
CONCLUSION
In view of the foregoing discussion, we grant Appellants' Request for
Rehearing to the extent of reconsidering our decision, but we deny
Appellants' request with respect to making any change thereto.
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).
REHEARING DENIED
3