Ex Parte Reunamaki et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 21, 201411071677 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 21, 2014) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JUKKA REUNAMAKI and JUHA SALOKANNEL ____________ Appeal 2011-011591 Application 11/071,677 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, STEPHEN C. SIU, and ERIC B. CHEN, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-33. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants’ invention reserves a portion of a medium to transmit wireless signals in a format different from that used in a different network, where the reservation ensures that respective wireless signals do not interfere with each other. In one implementation, a reservation signal is sent Appeal 2011-011591 Application 11/071,677 2 to devices in one network indicating that reservation of a portion of the medium has already been established to prevent negotiating the reservation in that network. See generally Abstract; Spec. ¶¶ 0049-51; Fig. 3. Claim 1 is illustrative: 1. A method, comprising: (a) exchanging by a wireless device, wireless signals in a first wireless communications network, in a first format associated with the first wireless communications network via a transmission medium, wherein all devices in the first network share control by transmitting and receiving beacons within the wireless network to at least negotiate reserving portions of the transmission medium; (b) reserving by the wireless device, a portion of the transmission medium for the transmission of wireless signals in a second format associated with a second wireless network, the reservation to ensure that wireless signals transmitted in the second format do not interfere with transmissions in the first format, the reservation being accomplished by transmitting a reservation signal in the first format to a plurality of devices in the first network, which indicates to the plurality of devices that the reservation of the portion of the medium has already been established by the wireless device to prevent negotiation of the reservation in the first network; (c) transmitting by the wireless device, one or more wireless wake-up/activation signals in the second network, in the second format to a remote wireless communications device, the one or more signals in the second format for waking up/activating a radio/radio interface of the remote device to join the first network; and (d) receiving by the wireless device, a beacon from the remote wireless device, including control information to further share control with all devices in the first wireless network. Appeal 2011-011591 Application 11/071,677 3 THE REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 1-4, 6, 13-16, 20, 24-26, 29, and 31-33 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Appellants’ admitted prior art (“AAPA”), Sugaya (US 2003/0148767 A1; published Aug. 7, 2003), and McCorkle (US 7,346,120 B2; issued Mar. 18, 2008; filed Dec. 13, 2002). Ans. 4-8.1 The Examiner rejected claims 5, 17-19, and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over AAPA, Sugaya, McCorkle, and Danon (US 2005/0249183 A1; published Nov. 10, 2005; filed Jan. 25, 2005). Ans. 8-9. The Examiner rejected claims 7-12, 21-23, 27, and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over AAPA, Sugaya, McCorkle, and Kim (US 2005/0063331 A1; published Mar. 24, 2005; filed Sept. 20, 2004). Ans. 9-11. THE REJECTION OVER AAPA, SUGAYA, AND MCCORKLE The Examiner finds that Appellants’ Specification admits that exchanging wireless signals in a first wireless communication network by a wireless device, where all network devices share control by transmitting and receiving beacons within the network to negotiate reserving portions of a transmission medium, is known in the art. Ans. 4-5, 13-14 (citing Spec. ¶¶ 0002-04, 0007-08). The Examiner acknowledges that AAPA does not explicitly reserve a portion of the medium to transmit wireless signals in a second format associated with a second network by transmitting a 1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Appeal Brief filed February 23, 2011 (“App. Br.”); (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed May 12, 2011 (“Ans.”); and (3) the Reply Brief filed May 23, 2011 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2011-011591 Application 11/071,677 4 reservation signal in the first format to devices in the first network indicating that the reservation has been established to prevent negotiating the reservation, but cites Sugaya as teaching this feature. Ans. 5-6, 14-16, 18- 24. In view of these collective teachings, combined with McCorkle, which is said to teach the recited wake-up/activation signal transmission, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 would have been obvious. Ans. 4-7, 11-24. Appellants argue that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest transmitting a reservation signal to devices in a first network indicating that a reservation has been established in a second format associated with a second network to prevent negotiating the reservation in the first network, as claimed. App. Br. 22-49; Reply Br. 2-4. According to Appellants, not only does AAPA’s beacon-based, reservation-negotiation scheme fail to prevent negotiation via a reservation signal as claimed, but Sugaya and McCorkle are likewise deficient in this regard, for they both pertain to master-slave arrangements that do not involve negotiation at all, let alone preventing such negotiation. App. Br. 22-39, 41-46. Appellants add that combining the slave devices of Sugaya or McCorkle with AAPA, as proposed by the Examiner, would be inoperable to achieve the results of the claimed invention due to the slaves’ inability to share control or negotiate for reservations with other wireless devices. App. Br. 39-41, 47-49. ISSUES 1. Under § 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that AAPA, Sugaya, and McCorkle collectively would have taught or suggested transmitting a reservation signal to plural devices in a first network indicating that a reservation has been established in a second format Appeal 2011-011591 Application 11/071,677 5 associated with a second network to prevent negotiating the reservation in the first network? 2. Is the Examiner’s combination of the cited references supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion? ANALYSIS On this record, we find no error in the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of representative claim 1. First, there is no dispute that AAPA teaches negotiating reservations among networked devices via beacons, and that the devices recognize these beacons as indicating ongoing negotiations. See App. Br. 32 (describing the negotiating functionality of conventional MBOA2-capable devices using beacons); see also Ans. 14 (“MBOA provides for the negotiation and reservation of portions of the transmission medium through beacon communications.”). The question, then, is whether it would have been obvious to provide a reservation signal indicating to these devices that a reservation was established in another format associated with a different network to prevent negotiating the reservation in the first network. We see no error in the Examiner’s reliance on Sugaya in this regard, and in particular, the Examiner’s mapping the recited “reservation signal” to Sugaya’s (1) utilization request 22 sent to a control station, and (2) resulting network synchronization information 23 sent by that station to the other devices on the network responsive to the request. Ans. 16 (noting that Sugaya teaches a 2 MBOA stands for “MultiBand Orthogonal frequency division multiplexing Alliance.” Spec. ¶ 0003. Appeal 2011-011591 Application 11/071,677 6 reservation request signal that is first sent to a control device (citing numeral 22 in Figure 4), and then sent to plural devices in a first network “informing of the reservation” (citing numeral 23)); see also Sugaya ¶¶ 0072-75. Even assuming, without deciding, that the devices 1-6 that receive this “reservation signal” from the master control station 7 in Sugaya are “slaves” to that station as Appellants contend (App. Br. 34-38; Reply Br. 3-4), this signal’s associated synchronization information nevertheless indicates to receiving devices that a different communication system has been allocated responsive to an associated request from a particular device. See Sugaya ¶ 0074; Figs. 1-4. We see no reason why such a signal-based notification technique could not be applied to AAPA’s beacon-based reservation negotiation scheme as the Examiner proposes, for such a modification would predictably yield a system where the MBOA-capable devices would be notified of an established “reservation” in connection with allocating a different communication system responsive to a device’s request. Such a notification would at least contribute to preventing negotiating that reservation by the other devices, for this notification at least suggests that such a negotiation would be futile in view of the already-established reservation indicated by the received signal. We emphasize claim 1’s “to prevent negotiation” limitation here, for the claim does not recite an active prevention step, but rather that the transmitted reservation signal’s indication of an already-established reservation is to prevent negotiating the reservation in the first network—a desired result that need not occur. In any event, we see no reason why providing a reservation signal such as that disclosed by Sugaya in AAPA as Appeal 2011-011591 Application 11/071,677 7 the Examiner proposes would not at least contribute to achieving that desired prevention result as noted above. We reach this conclusion even assuming, without deciding, that Sugaya’s system involves no negotiation due to a master-slave arrangement as Appellants contend. As the Examiner indicates (Ans. 12-13), the Examiner’s rejection is not based on bodily incorporating or physically substituting Sugaya’s teachings into AAPA, but rather based on their collective teachings. See Ans. 12-13; see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981); In re Mouttet, 686 F.3d 1322, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“[A] determination of obviousness based on teachings from multiple references does not require an actual, physical substitution of elements.”) (citations omitted). Nevertheless, even assuming, without deciding, that the combined AAPA/Sugaya system requires a control device to receive requests from, and transmit reservation signals to, other devices, nothing in the claim precludes such a control device as the Examiner indicates. Ans. 16 (“[T]he claim language does not limit the reservation request [from] being transmitted to a control device prior to being sent to the plurality of devices.”). Nor do we see any reason why such a control device could not be provided in the AAPA system even assuming, without deciding, that at least some of Sugaya’s devices immediately implement received scheduling information to function as “slave” devices as Appellants contend. Reply Br. 4. Even assuming, without deciding, that all devices receiving this information are so configured, that too would prevent negotiating that particular reservation, namely by the automatic, immediate configuration resulting from the established “reservation.” To the extent that Appellants Appeal 2011-011591 Application 11/071,677 8 contend that the proposed enhancement to AAPA would somehow destroy its principle of operation or render it unsuitable for its intended purpose (see App. Br. 39-41, 47-49; Reply Br. 4-6), we disagree. Not only have Appellants failed to provide persuasive evidence on this record to prove such unsuitability, nothing in the claim precludes providing at least a temporary “master-slave” arrangement for certain devices under the particular conditions recited in the claim, namely when reservations made in connection with a different network. Nor do we find error in the Examiner’s reliance on McCorkle for the limited purpose for which the reference was cited, namely merely to show that transmitting wireless wake-up activation signals to devices are known in the art, and that providing such a feature in the AAPA/Sugaya system would have been obvious. Ans. 6-7, 24. Such an enhancement predictably uses prior art elements according to their established functions—an obvious improvement. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Appellants’ arguments regarding the cited references’ individual shortcomings (App. Br. 27-28, 31-39, 41-44) are unpersuasive where, as here, the obviousness rejection is based on the cited references’ collective teachings. See Keller, 642 F.2d at 426. The Examiner’s combining the teachings of the cited references is, therefore, supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner’s obviousness conclusion. Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting representative claim 1, and claims 2-4, 6, 13-16, 20, 24-26, 29, and 31-33 not argued separately with particularity. Appeal 2011-011591 Application 11/071,677 9 THE REMAINING OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of (1) claims claims 5, 17-19, and 30 over AAPA, Sugaya, McCorkle, and Danon, and (2) claims 7-12, 21-23, 27, and 28 over AAPA, Sugaya, McCorkle, and Kim. Ans. 8-11. Despite nominally arguing these claims separately, Appellants reiterate similar arguments made in connection with claim 1 and allege that the additional cited references fail to cure those purported deficiencies, including transmitting the recited wake-up signal in a second network to initiate joining the remote device to the first network. App. Br. 49-52. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments, however, for the reasons previously discussed and by the Examiner. Ans. 8-11, 24-26. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-33 under § 103. DECISION The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-33 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation