Ex Parte Tanach

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 30, 2015

12586703 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 30, 2015)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte MOSHE TANACH
____________

Appeal 2012-009749
Application 12/586,703
Technology Center 2600
____________

Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.

KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1–18. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

INVENTION
The invention relates to management of an idle state of a wireless
device using clear channel assessment indications. (See Abstract.)
Exemplary claims 1 and 14 are reproduced below:
1. An apparatus, including
Appeal 2012-009749
Application 12/586,703

2
a wireless communications device to communicate in a wireless
communications network, the wireless communications device
including one or more modules to:
receive a wireless signal;
produce a first clear channel assessment (CCA) indicator that
indicates if the wireless signal has a first set of characteristics;
produce a second CCA indicator that indicates if the wireless
signal has a second set of characteristics different than the first set;
produce a combined CCA indicator from the first and second
CCA indicators; and
refrain from transmitting if the combined CCA indicator
indicates that a wireless communications channel is busy;
wherein the first set of characteristics conform to a CCA of
standard IEEE 802.11 a physical layer, and the second set of
characteristics conform to a CCA of standard IEEE 802.11g physical
layer.

14. An apparatus, including
a wireless communications device to communicate in a wireless
communications network over a wireless communications medium,
the wireless communications device including one or more modules
to:
receive a wireless signal;
provide a combined clear channel assessment indicator
(CCCAI) by combining a first physical layer protocol status received
in a first node within the wireless communications device and a
second physical layer protocol status received in a second node within
the wireless communications device; and
subsequent to receiving the CCCAI, determine a particular time
period to remain in a sleep state (Tsleep) in which the wireless
communications device does not listen to the communications
medium even though the wireless communications device is not
transmitting, the particular time period comprising a function of at
least one of a short inter-frame space (SIFS) time, a distributed inter-
frame space (DIFS) time, an acknowledge (ACK) time, a slot time, or
a portion of a frame length.

Appeal 2012-009749
Application 12/586,703

3
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE1
Claims 1, 4–8, and 10–12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sandhu2 and Lewis.3 (Ans. 4.)
Claims 14, 17, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Sandhu and Simpson.4 (Ans. 11.)
The remaining claims before this panel on appeal stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sandhu, Lewis, and/or
Simpson and additional prior art references. (Ans. 10, 11, 13, 14.)

ISSUES
The issues raised by the Examiner’s rejections and Appellant’s
contentions are:
1. Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Sandhu and Lewis teaches or suggests the following limitations of claim 1
(hereinafter, “the CCA limitations”):
produce a first clear channel assessment (CCA) indicator
that indicates if the wireless signal has a first set of
characteristics;

1 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claim 16 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph. (Ans. 15.) Appellant nevertheless seeks review of
the Examiner’s objection to a Specification amendment. (Reply Br. 4.)
Objections are petitionable to the Director, not appealable to the Board. See,
e.g., Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1077–78 (BPAI 2010) (precedential)
(determining a new matter objection to a drawing amendment is not within
the Board’s jurisdiction); see also MPEP §§ 706.01 and 1201 (9th ed., Mar.
2014). We therefore do not address this objection.
2 Sandhu, US 2006/0068854 A1; published Mar. 30, 2006.
3 Lewis, US 2005/0026639 A1; published Feb. 3, 2005.
4 Simpson et al., US 2005/0130713 A1; published June 16, 2005.
Appeal 2012-009749
Application 12/586,703

4
produce a second CCA indicator that indicates if the
wireless signal has a second set of characteristics different than
the first set;
produce a combined CCA indicator from the first and
second CCA indicators; and . . .
wherein the first set of characteristics conform to a CCA
of standard IEEE 802.11a physical layer, and the second set of
characteristics conform to a CCA of standard IEEE 802.11g
physical layer. 5

2. Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Sandhu and Simpson teaches or suggests the following limitation of claim
14: “provide a combined clear channel assessment indicator (CCCAI) by
combining a first physical layer protocol status received in a first node
within the wireless communications device and a second physical layer
protocol status received in a second node within the wireless
communications device.” 6

ANALYSIS

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 1
Appellant argues that the combination of Sandhu and Lewis does not
teach the CCA limitations of claim 1. (App. Br. 20–22.) The Examiner

5 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2–13. Instead, our decision
as to these claims turns on our decision as to the § 103 rejection of claim 1.
(App. Br. 23–24.) Except for our ultimate decision, claims 2–13 are not
addressed further herein.
6 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 15–18. Instead, our decision
as to these claims turns on our decision as to the § 103 rejection of claim 14.
(App. Br. 25–26.) Except for our ultimate decision, claims 15–18 are not
addressed further herein.
Appeal 2012-009749
Application 12/586,703

5
finds that Sandhu teaches: (a) two separate CCA calculators, which
“generate a CCA value for each of the activated receive chains” (i.e., first
and second CCA indicators); (b) these outputs are combined in a combiner
“to generate a combined CCA indicator” (i.e., combined CCA indicator from
the first and second CCA indicators); and (c) calculating the first and second
CCA indicators for the IEEE 802.11a physical layer (i.e., the CCA indicators
conform to the standard IEEE 802.11a physical layer). (Ans. 16–17 (citing
Sandhu, Fig. 2, ¶¶ 8, 11–14).) Thus, the Examiner finds “[t]he only missing
element in Sandhu is that none of the first and second CCA is using standard
IEEE 802.11 g physical layer,” and relies on Lewis for that teaching. (Ans.
17 (citing Lewis, ¶¶ 80, 92).)
Appellant argues that “Sandhu does not teach forming a combined
CCA parameter where each CCA parameter possesses different
characteristics. Sandhu merely teaches CCA values from different receiver
chains/antennas.” (App. Br. 21–22 (citing Sandhu, ¶ 13.) We observe that
nothing in claim 1 precludes the CCA indicators being produced for
different receiver chains or antennas. In addition, the Examiner does not
rely solely on Sandhu for teaching two CCA indicators with different sets of
characteristics, as recited in claim 1. Instead, the Examiner finds, and we
agree, that Lewis teaches “one CCA in IEEE 802.11/802.11 b physical layer
and another CCA in IEEE 802.11 g physical layer.” (Ans. 17 (citing Lewis,
¶¶ 80, 92).) The Examiner also finds, and we agree, that the combination of
this with Sandhu as discussed above teaches “the first set of characteristics
conforming to a CCA of standard IEEE 802.11 a physical layer, and the
second set of characteristics conforming to a CCA of standard IEEE 802.11
g physical layer.” (Ans. 17.) In other words, because these two sets of
Appeal 2012-009749
Application 12/586,703

6
characteristics conform to different standards, they are different from each
other. 7
Finally, Appellant argues that Sandhu or Lewis alone does not teach
“the first set of characteristics conforming to a CCA of standard IEEE
802.11 a physical layer, and the second set of characteristics conforming to a
CCA of standard IEEE 802.11 g physical layer.” (App. Br. 22.) As
discussed above, however, the Examiner relies on the combination of
Sandhu and Lewis as teaching this limitation. “[O]ne cannot show non-
obviousness by attacking references individually where . . . the rejections are
based on combinations of references.” In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426
(CCPA 1981) (citation omitted). Because we conclude that the Examiner
did not err in finding that the combination of Sandhu and Lewis teach the
CCA limitations, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.

OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIM 14
Appellant argues “Sandhu does not teach providing a combined clear
channel assessment indicator by combining a first physical layer protocol
status received in a first node within the wireless communications device
and a second physical layer protocol status received in a second node within
the wireless communications device,” as recited in claim 14. (App. Br. 25.)
Specifically, Appellant argues that Sandhu does not teach a first physical
layer protocol status and a second physical layer protocol status. (Reply Br.

7 Because we conclude that this combination teaches the argued limitations,
we need not address Appellant’s arguments directed to the Examiner’s
finding that the CCA indicators have different RSSI [received signal
strength indication] values. (Ans. 17 (citing Sandhu, ¶ 14); Reply Br. 4–5.)
Appeal 2012-009749
Application 12/586,703

7
7 (citing Sandhu, ¶¶ 12–13).) The Examiner finds the same portion of
Sandhu discussed supra teaches this limitation of claim 14. (Ans. 19–20
(citing Sandhu, Fig. 2, ¶¶ 8, 11–14).)
We agree with the Examiner. Under the broadest reasonable
interpretation, a “physical layer protocol status” includes a CCA function
because such a function determines the state of the physical layer of a
wireless medium. See IEEE 100, The Authoritative Dictionary of IEEE
Standards Terms 175 (7th ed. 2000) (defining “clear channel assessment
function” as the “logical function in the physical layer (PHY) that
determines the current state of use of the wireless medium (WM)”). We
further observe that nothing in claim 14 requires that the first and second
physical layer protocol statuses have different characteristics. Thus, we
agree with the Examiner’s findings that the CCA calculators and the
combiner taught in Sandhu and discussed supra meet the argued limitation.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.

DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1–18 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
llw