Ex Parte Vijayasankar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 27, 2017

13889878 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 27, 2017)

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.
13/889,878 05/08/2013 Kumaran Vijayasankar TI-72401 1394
23494 7590 03/01/2017
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED
P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999
DALLAS, TX 75265
EXAMINER
FAYED, RASHA K
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2479
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/01/2017 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):
uspto@ti.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte KUMARAN VIJAYASANKAR, RAMANUJA VEDANTHAM,
and TARKESH PANDE
Appeal 2016-004286
Application 13/889,8781
Technology Center 2400
Before JEAN R. HOMERE, ADAM J. PYONIN, and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HOMERE, 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 Rejection of claims 1—20, which constitute all of the
claims pending in this appeal. App. Br. 5. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Texas Instruments
Incorporated. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-004286
Application 13/889,878
Appellants ’ Invention
Appellants invented a method and device for performing Carrier Sense
Multiple Access with Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) in a power line
communication (PLC) network. Spec. |18, Fig. 1. In particular, a PLC
device (113) monitors a PLC channel to transmit a data packet thereon upon
detecting no energy is present on the PLC channel. However, upon
detecting the presence of energy on the PLC channel, the PLC device (113)
freezes a back-off counter at a current value while performing a preamble
detection operation. After the preamble detection is timed out, the PLC
device (113) decrements the back-off counter by a value equal to the
preamble detection divided by the slot duration. Id.
Illustrative Claim
Independent claim 1 is illustrative, and reads as follows:
1. A method for performing Carrier Sense Multiple Access with
Collision Avoidance (CSMA/CA) in a power line communication
(PLC) network, comprising:
monitoring energy on a PLC channel by a PLC device having a
data packet for transmission;
performing a preamble detection operation; and
transmitting the data packet on the PLC channel by the PLC
device if no energy is detected on the PLC channel.
KOGA et al.
Leith et al.
Prior Art Relied Upon
US 2008/0240143 Al Oct. 2, 2008
US 2009/0252053 Al Oct. 8, 2009
2
Appeal 2016-004286
Application 13/889,878
Rejection on Appeal
Claims 1—20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over the combination of Leith and Koga. Final Act. 2—21.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim, as they are presented in
the Appeal Brief, pages 9-17.2
Appellants argue the combination of Leith and Koga, relied upon by
the Examiner, does nothing more than reiterate the problem of the prior art
whereby “the node may falsely detect a channel to be busy due to impulse
noises as can be found in PLC channels.” App. Br. 16 (quoting Spec. 1 8).
In particular, Appellants argue that although Leith discloses CSMA/CA in
wireless channels, it does not take into account PLC channel characteristics.
Id. Further, Appellants argue that Koga’s CSMA/CA solution involving the
use of a short preamble “suffers from the time required to perform
successful preamble detection.” Id. Additionally, Appellants argue that
“[t]he Examiner has not provided a technical valid reason that would have
prompted a person of ordinary skill in the relevant field to combine the
elements in the way the claimed new invention does.” Id. These arguments
are not persuasive.
2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we
refer to the Appeal Brief (filed July 31, 2015), and the Answer (mailed
January 14, 2016) for their respective details. We have considered in this
Decision only those arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. Any
other arguments Appellants could have made but chose not to make in the
Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
3
Appeal 2016-004286
Application 13/889,878
At the outset, we note Appellants’ arguments have not particularly
identified any of the claims on appeal or any limitations recited therein as
not being taught or suggested by the proposed combination. Instead,
Appellants paint with a broad brush what they contend to be the essence of
the invention without establishing a basis therefore in the rejected claims.
Further, we note Appellants’ arguments are not responsive to the specific
findings made by the Examiner in support of the ultimate conclusion of
obviousness. In particular, the Examiner finds Leith discloses a CSMA/CA
scheme wherein a wireless channel is monitored to transmit a data packet
when the channel is not busy, and to decrement a back-off counter when the
channel is busy. Ans. 4 (citing Leith H 3—6). Further, the Examiner finds
that Koga discloses detecting the preamble carrier of a PLC system to
monitor the channel status.3 Id. at 5 (citing Koga || 5—9, 65). The
Examiner then concludes that “combining the systems of Koga and Leith
would provide a communication system that controls transmission to avoid
collision and interference between signals (apparatuses) in PLC systems, by
adjusting (shortening) the back-off time (wait/ delay time) so that the
transmission efficiency can be improved.” Id. at 5—6 (citing Koga 2, 35—
9, 55—57, 65, 77—80), see also Final Action 2—21. The Examiner has, in
addition, provided a rationale for combining the cited references. Therefore,
on the record before us, the Examiner has established a prima facie case of
obviousness against the claims on appeal.4 Id. Appellants, in contrast, have
3 Separately, we find Koga’s preamble detection would serve to
simultaneously monitor energy on the channel within the meaning of the
claim. See Koga 13; compare Spec. 1 55.
4 The PTAB carries its procedural burden of establishing a prima facie case
when its rejection satisfies 35 U.S.C. § 132, in “notifying] the applicant. . .
4
Appeal 2016-004286
Application 13/889,878
not particularly disputed any of the specific findings or the rationale to
combine the references as set forth by the Examiner. Id. Appellants are
reminded that a general allegation as to the purported benefits of the claimed
invention, and a general discussion of the prior art relied upon by the
Examiner in the rejection are not tantamount to a responsive argument.
Such a response to the Examiner’s findings is insufficient to persuade us of
Examiner error, as mere conclusory statements are entitled to little probative
value. Ex parte Belinne, No. 2009-004693, slip op. at 7—8 (BPAI Aug. 10,
2009) (informative); see also In re Lovin, 652 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir.
2011) (“[W]e hold that the Board reasonably interpreted Rule 41.37 to
require more substantive arguments in an appeal brief than a mere recitation
of the claim elements and a naked assertion that the corresponding elements
were not found in the prior art.”); cf. In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d
388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (“It is not the function of this court to examine the
claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable]
distinctions over the prior art.”) Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error
in the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—20 over the combination of Leith
and Koga.
[by] stating the reasons for [its] rejection, or objection or requirement,
together with such information and references as may be useful in judging of
the propriety of continuing the prosecution of [the] application.” 35 U.S.C. §
132. This section ‘“is violated when a rejection is so uninformative that it
prevents the applicant from recognizing and seeking to counter the grounds
for rejection.’” In re Jung 637 F.3d 1356, 1362 (Fed. Cir. 2011) citing
Chester v. Miller, 906 F.2d 1574, 1578 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
In the instant case, the Examiner has made reasonable, informative
findings supported by evidence from the cited references. Appellants have
not specifically rebutted these findings.
5
Appeal 2016-004286
Application 13/889,878
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s obviousness
rejection of claims 1—20.
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
6