Ex Parte Tsao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 21, 2016

12956782 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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.
12/956,782 11/30/2010 Wei-sung Tsao QCB112237 9969
7590 12/23/2016
Paradice and Li LLP/Qualcomm
1999 S. Bascom Ave.
Suite 300
Campbell, CA 95008
EXAMINER
HSIUNG, HAI-CHANG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/23/2016 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
uspto@paradiceli.com
william @paradiceli. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte WEI-SUNG TSAO and PAUL PETRUS
Appeal 2015-007816
Application 12/956,782
Technology Center 2400
Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
Per Curiam.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1—22. Final Rejection 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
Introduction
Appellants’ invention relates to “controlling WLAN and Bluetooth
communications by allocating bandwidth into times blocs having a first
segment with Bluetooth priority and a second segment with WLAN
priority.” Abstract.
Appeal 2015-007816
Application 12/956,782
Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized)
1. A method for controlling wireless local area network
(WLAN) and personal area network (PAN) communications
comprising:
providing a device having a WLAN module with a
hardware portion, a PAN module with a hardware portion, and a
packet traffic interface between the WLAN hardware portion and
the PAN hardware portion;
dividing available communication bandwidth into
repeating time blocs of equal defined duration;
allocating bandwidth in each time bloc into a first segment
and a second segment;
assigning priority to PAN communication for the first
segment and assigning priority to WLAN communication for the
second segment; and
signaling wireless access to the PAN hardware portion
through the packet traffic interface during the first segment,
wherein for at least one of the first segment and the second
segment, both PAN communication and WLAN communication
are allowed based, at least in part, on relative priorities of the
PAN communication and the WLAN communication.
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Sherman (US 2009/0137206 Al, published May 28, 2009)
in view of Bitran (US 2009/0129367 Al, published May 21, 2009). Final
Rejection 2.
ANALYSIS
Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner,
we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed September 8, 2014), the Advisory
Action (mailed November 20, 2014), the Appeal Brief (filed March 23,
2015), the Answer (mailed June 24, 2015), and the Reply Brief (filed August
2
Appeal 2015-007816
Application 12/956,782
24, 2015) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision
only arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs.
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the
findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this
appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where
noted.
Appellants argue Examiner error because “Sherman’s time blocs must
be variable in duration” and the Examiner’s proposal “represents an
improper modification.” Appeal Brief 4. Particularly, Appellants contend
that in Sherman, (time periods T1-T2) is “the duration of the high priority
transaction” and T2 is “the time between high priority transactions.” Appeal
Brief 5, citing Sherman || 170, 150; see also Reply Brief 2—3. Appellants
further contend that “since both T2 and (T1-T2) are continually adjusted
based on the detected Bluetooth transactions, the time duration Tl, which is
simply the sum of these periods, must also be variable” (Appeal Brief 5),
whereas “substituting Sherman’s variable Tl with the repeating equal
durations of Bitran’s super-frames is incompatible with Sherman’s intended
operation.” Appeal Brief 6; see also Reply Brief 4—5.
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds,
and we agree, that “Sherman’s Tl and (T1-T2) are continually adjusted
based on the detected Bluetooth transactions but Sherman’s PRM [Bluetooth
Prediction Machine] is also detecting and identifying Bluetooth patterns”
which include an “EV4 packet having 24 Bluetooth slots” equal to Bitran’s
15 millisecond super-frame. Answer 6, citing Sherman || 153—156. Under
3
Appeal 2015-007816
Application 12/956,782
this modification, Sherman’s PRM would operate within each 15
millisecond super-frame, which is different from setting T1 equal to 15
milliseconds. The Examiner correctly finds that one of ordinary skill in the
art would follow Bitran’s suggestion of a super-frame because it “would
provide another implementation for timing synchronization among different
types [of] wireless communication devices for sharing [a] common radio
resource.” Final Rejection 7. Appellants’ argument assumes the bodily
incorporation of Sherman’s teachings, and such argument is unpersuasive:
[t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed
invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(citations omitted). We
additionally note that the claimed “dividing available communications
bandwidth into repeating time blocs of equal defined duration” itself appears
to be a “predictable variation” that a person of ordinary skill could
implement. See KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-418
(2007).
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
independent claim 1, as well as independent claim 12 commensurate in
scope, and claims 2—11 and 13—22 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief
6.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—22.
4
Appeal 2015-007816
Application 12/956,782
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