Ex Parte Srinivasan et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 23, 201311432074 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2013) Copy Citation UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte BHASKAR SRINIVASAN, ABTIN KESHAVARZIAN, and DHANANJAY LAL ____________ Appeal 2011-006430 Application 11/432,074 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, JAMES R. HUGHES, and ERIC S. FRAHM, Administrative Patent Judges. HUGHES, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-006430 Application 11/432,074 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants seek our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s final decision rejecting claims 1-19. (App. Br. 2.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Appellants’ Invention The invention at issue on appeal concerns wireless sensor nodes, networks, and methods of reducing an energy consumption of a wireless network wherein a wireless receiver node periodically enters a sleep mode, broadcasts a signal across a wide range of frequencies, and upon waking from the sleep mode determines a signal strength of the broadcast signal in a narrow frequency range within the wide range of frequencies. (Spec. 1:2-3, 2:11-3:22; Abstract.) Representative Claim Independent claim 1, reproduced below with the key disputed limitations emphasized, further illustrates the invention: 1. A method of reducing an energy consumption of a wireless network, the method comprising: periodically entering a sleep mode by a receiver node; broadcasting a signal simultaneously across an entirety of a wide band frequency range; and upon waking up from the sleep mode, listening by the receiver node to only a first narrow part of the wide band frequency range, the receiver node subsequently performing one of the following: returning to sleep if a signal strength of the broadcasted signal is less than a predefined signal strength threshold; and Appeal 2011-006430 Application 11/432,074 3 staying awake for an additional period of time if the signal strength of the broadcasted signal is greater than the predefined signal strength threshold. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejects claims 1-7 and 9-16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2003/0224731 A1, published Dec. 4, 2003 (“Yamaura”) and U.S. Patent No. 6,477,354 B1, issued Nov. 5, 2002 (“Roberts”). 2. The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaura, Roberts, and Official Notice. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 17-19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaura, Roberts, and U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2006/0290519 A1, published Dec. 28, 2006 (filed Jan. 22, 2006) (“Boate”). 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 concluding that Yamaura and Roberts collectively teach or would have suggested “periodically entering a sleep mode by a receiver node; broadcasting a signal simultaneously across an entirety of a wide band frequency range; and upon waking up from the sleep mode, listening by the receiver node to only a first narrow part of the wide band frequency range” within the meaning of Appellants’ claim 1 and the commensurate limitations of claims 11 and 17? Appeal 2011-006430 Application 11/432,074 4 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 and independent claims 11 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yamaura and Roberts. (Ans. 3-10, 13-16.) Appellants contend that Yamaura and Roberts do not render the claims obvious. (App. Br. 4-7; Reply Br. 2-4.) We agree with Appellants that the portions of Yamaura and Roberts identified by the Examiner do not teach or suggest the disputed features of independent claim 1 (and independent claims 11 and 17). (Id.) Specifically, we agree with Appellants that neither Yamaura (¶¶ [0085], [0087], [0089]) nor Roberts (col. 35, ll. 40-57), cited by the Examiner (Ans. 5, 15) as describing “broadcasting a signal simultaneously across an entirety of a wide band frequency range” (claim 1), teach or suggest this disputed feature. The Examiner initially submits that “Yamaura does not explicitly disclose ‘broadcasting a signal simultaneously across an entirety of a wide band frequency range’” (Ans. 5; see Final Office Action mailed April 15, 2010, p. 3) and cites Roberts as meeting this limitation. The Examiner then changes the thrust of the rejection (and seemingly, his position with respect to Yamaura) – stating that Yamaura “teaches” this limitation while failing to address Appellants’ arguments with respect to Roberts. (App. Br. 6-7; Reply Br. 3.) As explained by Appellants, Roberts does not suggest transmitting/broadcasting over a wide range of frequencies; rather, Roberts teaches transmitting over a single 6MHz band and repeating the process if there is a loss of synchronization. (App. Br. 6; Roberts, col. 35, ll. 40-57.) Yamaura teaches transmitting across a number of “narrow-band carriers” (¶ [0087]; see ¶ [0089]), which the Examiner equates with broadcasting “‘simultaneously across an entirety of a wide band frequency range’” (Ans. Appeal 2011-006430 Application 11/432,074 5 15 (quoting claim 1).) We cannot agree with the Examiner that a number of narrow bands are somehow equivalent to an entire wide range of frequencies. Consequently, we are constrained by the record before us to find that the Examiner erred in concluding that the combination of Yamaura and Roberts teaches or suggests the recited features of Appellants’ claim 1, and the rejection of claim 1 fails to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. Appellants’ independent claims 11 and 17 include limitations of commensurate scope. Appellants’ dependent claims 2-10, 12-16, 18, and 19 depend on and stand with claims 1, 11, and 17, respectively. Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejections of claims 1-19. CONCLUSION OF LAW Appellants have shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1- 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-19. REVERSED msc Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation