Ex Parte Proctor et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 19, 2013

10465817 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 19, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte JAMES ARTHUR PROCTOR, JR. and
KENNETH MARVIN GAINEY
____________________

Appeal 2011-005447
Application 10/465,817
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before: JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM,
Administrative Patent Judges.

DIXON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-005447
Application 10/465,817

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1 and 3-26. Claim 2 has been canceled. App. Br. 3. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
INVENTION
Appellants’ claimed invention is generally related to wireless
communications, and particularly, to wireless local area networks. (Spec. 1).
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the
subject matter on appeal.
1. A wireless area network including at least one access
point and providing for multiple possible network devices, the
wireless area network further being located in a structure with
wiring, comprising:

an interface unit wirelessly receiving a wireless signal
from the access point and transmitting an electric signal on the
wiring, or for receiving the electric signal from the wiring
and transmitting the wireless signal to the access point, wherein
the electric signal is directly electromagnetically associated
with the wireless signal, wherein the wiring comprises power
lines.

REFERENCES
Woodmas US 5,345,592 Sep. 6, 1994
Niki US 5,812,933 Sep. 22, 1998
Cook US 6,005,884 Dec. 21, 1999
Koga US 6,106,306 Aug. 22, 2000
Judd US 7,027,770 B2 Apr. 11, 2006

Appeal 2011-005447
Application 10/465,817

3
REJECTIONS
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Niki and Woodmas.
Claims 3-9 and 11-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Judd, Cook, and Woodmas.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Judd, Cook, Woodmas, and Koga.
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Judd, Niki, and Woodmas.
Claims 15-26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Judd, Cook, Niki, and Woodmas.

ANALYSIS
With respect to representative independent claim 1, Appellants’ main
contention is with respect to the limitation “wherein the wiring is existing
power lines.” (App. Br. 9-10) (internal quotation marks omitted). The
Examiner has relied upon the Woodmas reference which “provides both
signaling and power over a single coaxial cable between a television control
station and a remote camera station.” (App. Br. 10). Appellants maintain
that
Woodmas fails to teach “wiring comprising power lines” as
featured in claim 1. Instead, Woodmas merely teaches a signal
line which is used to carry a low DC voltage for powering a
video camera. One of ordinary skill in the art would not
consider a conventional 75 Ohm coaxial cable capable of
reading on a “power line” as featured in claim 1.

(App. Br. 10; see generally Reply Br. 2-4).
Appeal 2011-005447
Application 10/465,817

4
The Examiner disagrees with Appellants and maintains that
Appellants’ Specification identifies various structural wiring including a
coaxial cable. (Ans. 31-32). The Examiner further maintains that the
Woodmas reference teaches providing both a signal and power over a single
coaxial cable which is used to power the equipment. (Ans. 31). We agree
with the Examiner’s claim interpretation and line of reasoning that the
coaxial cable supplies both signal and DC power transfer and hence are
“power lines.” If Appellants intended to limit the claims to AC power lines
rather than DC power then the claims should have expressly recited such a
limitation. Therefore, Appellants’ argument does not show error in the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of representative independent claim
1. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1.
With respect to independent claim 3, 9, and 13, the Appellants
advance the same argument regarding the claimed limitation “wherein the
structural wiring is existing power lines within the structure.” (App. Br. 13-
15). Appellants advance the same line of reasoning that the Judd, Cook, and
Woodmas references do not teach or suggest the structural wiring is
“existing power lines within the structure.” (App. Br. 13-15). The
Appellants identify paragraph [0020] of the Specification which states
structural wiring may be “suitable wiring in a structure” and paragraph
[0006] which states that existing power lines are “the wiring of a standard
wall power outlet.” (App. Br. 15) (internal quotation marks omitted). We
note the portion of paragraph [0006] relied upon by Appellants actually
states in context: “a matching circuit that interfaces with, for example, the
wiring of a standard wall power outlet, or with other cabling or wiring
present within a structure, and that couples 802.11 signals transmitted to and
Appeal 2011-005447
Application 10/465,817

5
received from the access point over the wiring with no translation in RF
frequency.” Therefore, the paragraphs in the Specification identified by
Appellants do not expressly limit the claimed invention and do not show
error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness of representative claim 3.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of representative claim 3 and independent
claims 9 and 13 grouped therewith and their respective dependent claims.
With respect to dependent claim 10, Appellants repeat the language of
the claim and maintain that the Koga reference fails “to contemplate
matching the impedance of structural wiring, as the connectors are directed
to application for printed circuit boards.” (App. Br. 15-16; Reply Br. 6).
We disagree with Appellants’ general contention and find that the Koga
reference clearly teaches and fairly suggests impedance matching for
electrical circuits for reducing crosstalk noise. (Ans. 21).
With respect to independent claims 14, 15, and 21, Appellants rely
upon the argument that the coaxial cable shown in the Woodmas reference
“cannot be considered ‘existing power lines within the structure.’” (App.
Br. 16-17; Reply Br. 7-8). As discussed above, we find Appellants’
argument unpersuasive of error in the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness
and we group these claims as falling with representative independent claim
1.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1 and 3-26 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Appeal 2011-005447
Application 10/465,817

6
DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1 and 3-26 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

msc