Ex Parte Vijayasankar et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJan 23, 201814072765 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 23, 2018) Copy Citation 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. 14/072,765 11/05/2013 Kumaran Vijayasankar TI-73179 1063 23494 7590 01/25/2018 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER SMITH, MARCUS ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2467 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/25/2018 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, ANUJ BATRA, TARKESH PANDE, and IL HAN KIM Appeal 2017-003812 Application 14/072,7651 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and JAMES W. DEJMEK, Administrative Patent Judges. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1—20. We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Texas Instruments Incorporated as the Real Party in Interest. (Br. 1.) Appeal 2017-003812 Application 14/072,765 THE INVENTION Appellants’ disclosed and claimed invention is directed to communicating with a plurality of devices using different communication protocols. (Abstract.) Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for communicating with a plurality of devices using different communication protocols, the method comprising: receiving a signal at a transceiver device from a neighbor device via a physical layer of a communication media, wherein at a first time a first signal contains a header frame from a first device conforming to a first communication protocol and at another time a second signal contains a header frame from a second device conforming to a second communication protocol; determining which of the different communication protocols is being used by each of the plurality of devices, transmitting data frames from the transceiver device to the first device using the first communication protocol; and transmitting data frames from the transceiver device to the second device using the second communication protocol, wherein the transceiver device comprises a control service access point including a monolithic Medium Access Control (MAC) layer. 2 Appeal 2017-003812 Application 14/072,765 REJECTIONS The Examiner rejected claims 12—18 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by Van Wyk et al. (US 2014/0036702 Al, pub. Feb. 6, 2014). (Final Act. 4—6.) The Examiner rejected claims 1—11, 19, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Van Wyk and Wang et al. (US 2013/0051264 Al, pub. Feb. 28, 2013). (Final Act. 7-11.) ISSUES ON APPEAL Appellants’ arguments in the Appeal Brief present the following issues:2 Issue One: Whether the Examiner erred in finding Van Wyk discloses the independent claim 12 limitation, “wherein the transceiver device comprises a control service access point including a monolithic Medium Access Control (MAC) layer.” (Br. 5.) Issue Two: Whether the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Van Wyk and Wang teaches or suggests the independent claim 1 and 19 limitations, “wherein the transceiver device comprises a control service access point including a monolithic Medium Access Control (MAC) layer,” and “receiving a signal at a transceiver device from a neighbor device via a physical layer of a communication media.” (Br. 5—7.) 2 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the positions of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (filed April 4, 2016) (herein, “Br.”); the Final Office Action (mailed Jan. 6, 2016) (herein, “Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s Answer (mailed Aug. 11, 2016) (herein, “Ans.”) for the respective details. 3 Appeal 2017-003812 Application 14/072,765 ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred. We disagree with Appellants’ arguments, and we adopt as our own (1) the pertinent findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Office Action from which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 4—11) and (2) the corresponding findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. (Ans. 9-15.) We concur with the applicable conclusions reached by the Examiner, and emphasize the following. Issue One In regard to the Examiner’s rejection of claim 12 as anticipated by Van Wyk, Appellants argue Van Wyk does not disclose a “monolithic” Medium Access Control (MAC) layer, because the MAC layer disclosed in Van Wyk is part of a multi-layer implementation conforming to the multi layer Open Systems Interconnection (OSI) Model or other conventional Internet Protocol model, whereas a monolithic MAC is “without conventional layering.” (Br. 5; Van Wyk 1108.) However, the Examiner concludes the broadest reasonable interpretation of monolithic MAC layer is “hav[ing] a single MAC layer.” (Ans. 12.) Appellants have not submitted any explanation of why this interpretation would be unreasonable, and we do not find any definition of the term in the Specification. Therefore, we are not persuaded the Examiner’s interpretation is in error. As the MAC layer disclosed in Van Wyk is a single MAC layer, we agree that Van Wyk discloses the claim limitation at issue. (Final Act. 5; Van Wyk || 37, 108— 109.) 4 Appeal 2017-003812 Application 14/072,765 Issue Two In arguing the Examiner errs in rejecting independent claims 1 and 19 as obvious over Van Wyk and Wang, Appellants repeat the argument that Van Wyk does not disclose a monolithic MAC layer. (Br. 6.) We are not persuaded by this argument for the reasons discussed above. The Examiner concedes Van Wyk does not explicitly disclose the claim requirement of “receiving a signal at a transceiver device from a neighbor device via a physical layer of a communication media,” and relies on the disclosure in Wang of communicating between nodes using the physical layer as teaching or suggesting this claim requirement. (Final Act. 8-9; Wang, Fig. 13; H 79-80.) Appellants argue the Examiner errs because the modules in Wang relied on by the Examiner have “different Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) entities [which] makes each PHY unit an independent unit for receiving respective protocol packets.” (Br. 6.) However, the Examiner finds “the PHY layer 1335 [is] a single PHY layer that includes a radio module and PLC module.” (Ans. 13.) Appellants do not explain why this finding is in error, and, accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 12 as anticipated by Van Wyk, and of independent claims 1 and 19 as obvious over Van Wyk and Wang. We also sustain Examiner’s rejections of claims 13—18 as anticipated by Van Wyk, and of claims 2—11 and 20 as obvious over Van Wyk and Wang, which rejections are not argued separately with particularity. 5 Appeal 2017-003812 Application 14/072,765 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting 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). See 37 C.F.R. §41.50(f)(2015). AFFIRMED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation