Ex Parte TURTINEN et al

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

May 22, 2019

14278254 - (D) (P.T.A.B. May. 22, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/278,254 05/15/2014
157376 7590 05/24/2019
Xsensus/Broadcom
200 Daingerfield Road, Suite 201
Alexandria, VA 22314
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Samuli TURTINEN
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.
11272US01 9212
EXAMINER
BAIG,ADNAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/24/2019 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):
Faith.Baggett@Xsensus.com
Arlene.Hudgens@Xsensus.com
anaquadocketing@xsensus.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SAMUL! TURTINEN, SAMI-JUKKA HAKOLA,
TIMO KALEVI KOSKELA, and ANNA P ANTELIDOU
Appeal2018-007452
Application 14/278,2541
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, ERIC S. FRAHM, and MICHAEL T. CYGAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
CYGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-7, 13-24, and 37. We have jurisdiction under
35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, A vago Technologies General IP (Singapore)
PTE, LTD is the real party in interest. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2018-007452
Application 14/278,254
Disclosed Invention and Exemplary Claim
The disclosed invention relates to providing scaled coverage.
Abstract. A growth in the use of mobile devices has need for an increase in
access points, and to avoid overlapping coverage that may lead to
unnecessary power use and/or interference. Spec. ,i 2. For example, an
access point or station may comprise causing operation in a reduced
coverage mode. Abstract. A beacon may be generated indicating a reduced
coverage mode and one or more coverage scaling parameters, where the
beacon may be provided to one or more stations. Id.
Independent claim 1 below is exemplary of the disclosed invention,
and reads as follows with the disputed portions of the claim italicized for
emphasis:
1. A method for use in an access point (AP) for basic service set
(BSS) coverage sealing, the method comprising:
operating, by processing circuitry of the AP, in a
reduced coverage mode in accordance with a calculated
power reduction to reduce an overlap between a first
coverage area by the AP and a second coverage area by
another AP;
generating, by the processing circuitry, a beacon
comprising an indication, in a capability field of the beacon,
that the AP is operating in the reduced coverage mode, and a
plurality of coverage scaling parameters (CSP) in an
information element of the beacon; and
transmitting the beacon to one or more stations
(STAs).
Independent claims 13 and 20 recite limitations commensurate
with the above-emphasized limitations recited in claim 1. Dependent
claims 2-7, 14-19, 21-24, and 37 each incorporate the limitations of
their respective independent claims. Appellants do not argue any
2
Appeal2018-007452
Application 14/278,254
claims separately from claim 1. App. Br. 9. Accordingly, we select
claim 1 as representative per 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(iv).
Examiner's Rejection
The Examiner rejects claims 1-7, 13-24, and 37 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being obvious over the combination of Patel et al. (U.S.
2012/0142392 Al; published June, 2012) (hereinafter "Patel"), Larsson
(U.S. 2002/0172186 Al; published Nov. 21, 2002), and Kim et al. (U.S.
2012/0045005 Al; published Feb. 23, 2012) (hereinafter "Kim").
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejection (Final Act. 2-24) in light
of Appellants' contentions that the Examiner has erred (App. Br. 6-9).
Further, we have reviewed the Examiner's response to Appellants'
contentions. Ans. 2-7. We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments of
error in the Examiner's rejection.
Appellants assign error to the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 13-
24, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being obvious over the combination of
Patel, Larsson, and Kim for failing to teach or suggest the claimed invention.
The issue raised by Appellants is whether the combination teaches or
suggests "generating, by the processing circuitry, a beacon comprising an
indication, in a capability field of the beacon, that the AP is operating in the
reduced coverage mode, and a plurality of coverage scaling parameters
( CSP) in an information element of the beacon," as recited in claim 1. App.
Br. 6.
3
Appeal2018-007452
Application 14/278,254
With respect to the limitation at issue, the Examiner finds Patel to
teach or suggest an AP operating in a reduced coverage mode and
generating, by the processing circuitry, a beacon when operating in the
reduced coverage mode, including a plurality of coverage scaling
parameters. Final Act. 3. The Examiner does not find a teaching or
suggestion in Patel of the beacon having an indication that the AP is
operating in a reduced coverage mode, but determines that such would be
obvious in view of the teachings or suggestions of Larsson. Final Act. 6-7.
The Examiner finds that neither Patel nor Larsson teaches or suggests
that the indication is located in a capability field of the beacon, but finds that
this limitation would be obvious in view of Kim. Final Act. 7. The
Examiner finds Kim to teach or suggest generating a beacon comprising an
indication in a capability field of the beacon that the AP is operating in the
reduced coverage mode. Id. at 8 ( citing Kim ,-J 33). The Examiner further
finds Kim to teach or suggest a receiver configured to receive, from the AP,
a beacon frame comprising an information element or a capability element
that indicates whether the AP is capable of supporting a power saving mode.
Final Act. 8 (citing Kim ,-J,-J 67-68). The Examiner equates Kim's power
saving mode to the claimed reduced coverage mode. Id.
Appellants contend that Kim, although teaching an indication in a
capability field of a beacon whether the AP is capable of supporting a power
saving mode of a terminal, does not teach or suggest an indication that the
AP is itself operating in power saving mode. App. Br. 7. Appellants further
contend that Larsson does not teach or suggest an indication that the AP is
operating in a reduced coverage mode. Id. at 9.
4
Appeal2018-007452
Application 14/278,254
We do not find Appellants' contentions persuasive. Appellants'
contentions amount to argument that, individually, none of the references
teach all of the limitations of claim 1. App. Br. 7-9. However, one cannot
show obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections
are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA
1981); see also In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, Appellants' argument that Larsson does not teach or suggest an
indication that the AP is operating in a reduced coverage mode is not
persuasive because the Examiner relies upon the combination of Patel and
Larsson to teach that limitation of the claim. Appellants have not
persuasively explained how the combination of Patel and Larsson, as
arranged in the rejection, fails to teach or suggest that claim limitation.
Similarly, Appellants argue that the AP of Kim may not itself operate
in a reduced coverage mode. However, that is not persuasive to show that,
having been taught or suggested by the combination of Patel and Larsson to
generate a beacon having information as to whether the AP is in reduced
coverage mode, Kim does not teach or suggest that one having ordinary skill
in the art would locate such information in a capability field of the beacon.
Accordingly, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
claim 1. Since Appellants rely on the identical argument for claims 2-7, 13-
24, and 37, Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting
those claims as well. See 37 C.F.R. §41.37(c)(l)(iv).
5
Appeal2018-007452
Application 14/278,254
CONCLUSION
We conclude that Appellants have not shown that the Examiner has
erred in rejecting claims 1-7, 13-24, and 37 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
obvious over the combination of Patel, Larsson, and Kim.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-7, 13-24, and 37
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § l .136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6