Ex Parte Rofougaran et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 1, 201612877745 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 1, 2016) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/877,745 09/08/2010 Ahmadreza (Reza) ROFOUGARAN 26111 7590 09/02/2016 STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C. 1100 NEW YORK A VENUE, N.W. WASHINGTON, DC 20005 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. 2875.3500000 3776 EXAMINER BILODEAU, DAVID ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2648 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 09/02/2016 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte AHMADREZA (REZA) ROFOUGARAN, ARYA REZA BEHZAD, SAM ZIQUN ZHAO, JESUS ALFONSO CASTANEDA, and MICHAEL BOERS Appeal2014-007000 Application 12/877,745 Technology Center 2600 Before CAROLYN D. THOMAS, JAMES R. HUGHES, and MONICA S. ULLAGADDI, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims 1-21, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. (See Final. Act. 1, 2; 1 App. Br. 12). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 We refer to Appellants' Specification ("Spec.") filed Sept. 8, 2010 (claiming benefit of US 61/298,751, filed Jan. 27, 2010); Appeal Brief ("App. Br,") filed Dec. 23, 2013; and Reply Brief ("Reply Br.") filed June 4, 2014. We also refer to the Examiner's Answer ("Ans.") mailed Apr. 16, 2014, and Final Office Action (Final Rejection) ("Final Act.") mailed July 3, 2013. 2 Appellants fail to number the pages of the Appeal Brief. We refer herein to the pages of the Appeal Brief as if numbered consecutively beginning with the cover page. Appeal2014-007000 Application 12/877,745 Appellants 'Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns methods for wireless communications among integrated circuits (I Cs) and functional blocks of such I Cs. In a network comprising a plurality of wireless-enabled components (WECs ), the method determines a desired resource to be borrowed by a first WEC, identifies WECs having the desired resource, calculates a cost function for borrowing the desired resource from each identified WEC, and selects an identified WEC from which to borrow the desired resource. (Spec. i-fi-12, 111-115, 117-120; Abstract.) Illustrative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method for resource borrowing in a wireless network comprising a plurality of wireless-enabled components (WECs ), the method comprising: determining a desired resource for a first WEC of the plurality of WECs; identifying WECs of the plurality of WECs that have the desired resource; calculating, for each WEC of the identified WECs, a cost function associated with borrowing the desired resource from said each WEC by the first WEC; and selecting a second WEC from among the identified WECs for the first WEC to borrow the desired resource therefrom, wherein the second WEC corresponds to a minimum cost function among the calculated cost functions. 2 Appeal2014-007000 Application 12/877,745 Rejection on Appeal The Examiner rejects claims 1-21under35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Wietfeldt et al. (US 2010/0302958 Al pub. Dec. 2, 2010 (filed Dec. I 0, 2009)) ("Wietfeldt"). ISSUE Based upon our review of the administrative record, Appellants' contentions, and the Examiner's findings and conclusions, the pivotal issue before us follows: Does the Examiner err in finding that Wietfeldt discloses "calculating, for each WEC of the identified WECs, a cost function associated with borrowing the desired resource from said each WEC by the first WEC," as recited in Appellants' claim 1? ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites "calculating, ... a cost fi.1nction associated \'l1ith borrowing the desired resource" for each WEC identified as having a desired resource. The Examiner finds this limitation is disclosed by Wietfeldt - Wietfeldt describes "achieving a good performance by identifying resources and mapping applications to them [which] is a calculation" and "the performance is equated to the 'cost function"' (Ans. 3 (citing Wietfeldt i-f 58; see Final Act. 4--5; Wietfeldt i-f 6, 7, 115)). Appellants contend Wietfeldt does not disclose a cost function, much less calculating such a cost function for each wireless device (WEC) identified as having a desired resource. App. Br. 8-1 O; Reply Br. 3--4. 3 Appeal2014-007000 Application 12/877,745 Appellants persuade us of error in the anticipation rejection of claim 1. We have reviewed the portions of Wietfeldt cited by the Examiner. Although Wietfeldt describes selecting among radios based on application requirements and radio capabilities such that the application has good performance (see i-fi-16, 7, 58, 115; Figs. 5, 9) and Wietfeldt also describes profiles containing preferences such as cost for determining connectivity (see i-fi-1 67, 78), Wietfeldt fails to explicitly describe how a cost determination for borrowing a resource for all wireless devices having the desired resource (a radio having the desired capabilities) is made. The Examiner's finding that Wietfeldt describes calculating a cost function for each WEC identified as having a desired resource has no support in the disclosure of Wietfeldt. Further, the record before us does not indicate that the Examiner found the "calculating" limitation to be inherently disclosed in Wietfeldt. Accordingly, we agree with Appellants that the Examiner does not establish that the cited portions of Wietfeldt disclose, either expressly or inherently, "calculating, for each WEC of the identified WECs, a cost function associated with borrowing the desired resource from said each WEC by the first WEC," as recited in Appellants' claim 1. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in finding Wietfeldt anticipates the disputed limitations of Appellants' claim 1. Claims 2-21 depend on claim 1. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner's anticipation rejection of claims 1-21. CONCLUSION Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1- 21under35 U.S.C. § 102(e). 4 Appeal2014-007000 Application 12/877,745 DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-21. REVERSED 5 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation