13826704 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 2017)

Ex Parte Rasband et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 15, 2017

13826704 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 15, 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. 13/826,704 03/14/2013 Paul B. Rasband R-SN-00125 8433 (336-0031US1) 71544 7590 Dean D. Small The Small Patent Law Group LLC 225 S. Meramec Suite 725 St. Louis, MO 63105 EXAMINER LINDENBAUM, ALAN LOUIS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2466 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/17/2017 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): dsmall@ splglaw.com docket@ splglaw.com ipLifeS afety @ tyco. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte PAUL B. RASBAND and STEWART E. HALL Appeal 2016-003453 Application 13/826,704 Technology Center 2400 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, ADAM J. PYONIN, and KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judges. SZPONDOWSKI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final Rejection of claims 1—24. This appeal is related to Appeal 2016- 003455 (Application No. 13/828,475). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Appeal 2016-003453 Application 13/826,704 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention is directed to a scalable protocol for large wireless sensor networks. Spec. 10-11. Claim 1, reproduced below with disputed limitations in italics, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method for providing a wireless sensor network between a main node and a plurality of nodes, the nodes associated with sensors, the method comprising: defining communications channels over which the main node communicates with the nodes based on a channel hopping scheme; defining at least one transfer channel that is dedicated to carrying transfer frames that are broadcast by the main node; configuring non-attached nodes that are not attached to the network to enter a connection session by tuning to the at least one transfer channel to listen for a transfer message, the transfer message indicating a next communications channel that will become active', tuning the non-attached nodes to the next communications channel and listening for a beacon frame; and utilizing the beacon frame as a timing reference to enable the non-attached nodes to attach to the network. REJECTIONS Claims 1 and 12 stand provisionally rejected on the ground of non- statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 2 of co pending Application No. 13/828,475. Claims 2—11 and 13—22 stand rejected 2 Appeal 2016-003453 Application 13/826,704 on the same grounds because they depend from rejected independent claims 1 and 12. Claims 1, 3—12, and 14—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Werb et al. (US 2007/0258508; published Nov. 8, 2007). Claims 2 and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Werb and Lam et al. (US 2007/0014267; published Jan. 18, 2007) (“Lam”). ANALYSIS Double Patenting Rejections Appellants request that the double patenting rejections be held in abeyance, but do not otherwise address the rejections. App. Br. 7. We, therefore, summarily sustain the Examiner’s non-statutory double patenting rejection. See MPEP § 1205.02 (2008) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, that ground of rejection will be summarily sustained by the Board.”); see also Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (“If an appellant fails to present arguments on a particular issue—or more broadly, on a particular rejection—the Board will not, as a general matter, unilaterally review those uncontested aspects of the rejection.”). Anticipation Rejections Dispositive Issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Werb discloses “configuring non-attached nodes that are not attached to the network to enter a connection session by tuning to the at least one transfer channel to listen 3 Appeal 2016-003453 Application 13/826,704 for a transfer message, the transfer message indicating a next communications channels that will become active,” as recited in independent claim 1 and commensurately recited in independent claim 12? Appellants contend, “in Werb, a node listens for a beacon on a control channel, and then performs a connectivity assessment.” App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue Werb discloses “communication availability” and “discloses a channel that is currently active, in stark contrast to a next communication channel that will become active.” App. Br. 11; see also Reply Br. 4—5. We are persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner relies on paragraphs 100, 102 and 112 of Werb to disclose the disputed limitation. Ans. 11—12; Final Act. 4, 9. The Examiner finds “each Beacon contains the scheduling information for the subsequent Beacons, as well as the AFA Sequence Table that is used to determine each of the subsequent (next) active communications channels.” Ans. 12. Werb describes “Routers 2 may periodically transmit messages called Frame Beacons.” Werb 199. These Frame Beacons may “signal the availability of the Parent for communication on a particular frequency channel for a period of time,” may “include scheduling information for future Frame Beacons so that other nodes can predict the availability of a given Router 2,” and may contain “[cjurrent offset into AFA Sequence table (that may be used to determine the currently active communications channel).” Werb H 100, 102, 112. In reviewing the Examiner’s findings, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner has not sufficiently shown Werb discloses the Frame Beacons (transfer messages) indicate a next communications channel that will become active, as required by the claims. 4 Appeal 2016-003453 Application 13/826,704 Although the Examiner finds the AFA Sequence Table is used to determine the next active communications channel (Ans. 12), Werb’s disclosure indicates that the AFA Sequence Table may be “used to determine the currently active communications channel.” Werb 1112, emphasis added. Accordingly, based on the record before us, we are persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Werb anticipates independent claims 1 and 12. Because we agree with at least one of the arguments advanced by Appellants, we need not reach the merits of Appellants’ other arguments. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 12. For the same reasons, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of dependent claims 3—11 and 14— 22 and the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 2 and 13. DECISION The Examiner’s non-statutory double patenting rejection of claims 1— 22 is affirmed. The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1, 3—12, and 14—22 is reversed. The Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 2 and 13 is reversed. 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 5