Ex Parte Walston

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2016

12993511 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/993,511 0111112011
21924 7590
ARRIS Enterprises, LLC
Legal Dept - Docketing
101 Tournament Drive
HORSHAM, PA 19044
11/25/2016
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Robert Allen Walston
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.
8306-US 6730
EXAMINER
SALCE, JASON P
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2421
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2016 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):
arrisdocketing@arris.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ROBERT ALLEN WALSTON
Appeal2015-006550
Application 12/993,511 1
Technology Center 2400
Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
CARLL. SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SILVERMAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
Final Rejection of claims 1-19. Final Act. 2. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The real party in interest is identified as ARRIS Group, Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal2015-006550
Application 12/993 ,511
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to initializing a dual mode device, such
as a cable modem. Abstract; Spec. 1, 1.10 through 2, 1. 28. Claim 1 is
exemplary of the matter on appeal (disputed limitations emphasized):
1. A computer implemented method for initializing a multi-mode
device, the method comprising:
a. supplying power to the multi-mode device;
b. retrieving a network type flag from a nonvolatile memory of
the multi-mode device;
c. operating the multi-mode device using a corresponding
network type, wherein the corresponding network type is selected
from at least a first network type or a second network type.
App. Br. 13 (Claims Appendix).
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 8, and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Walston (US 2006/0015918 Al; Jan. 19, 2006) ("Waltson
'918"). Final Act. 5---6.
Claims 2--4, 7, and 12-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Walston '918 and Walston (US 2005/0198685 Al;
Sept. 8, 2005) ("Waltson '685"). Final Act. 7-9.
Claims 5-6 and 10-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Walston '918 and Li et al. (US 2005/0076385 Al;
Apr. 7, 2005) ("Li"). Final Act. 9-10.
2
Appeal2015-006550
Application 12/993 ,511
Claim 14 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walston '918) in view of Lo et al. (US 2008/0120713 Al;
May 22, 2008) ("Lo"). Final Act. 10-11.
Claims 15-19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walston '918, Walston '685, and Lo. Final Act. 11.
ANALYSIS
The§ 102(e) rejection
Appellant argues Waltson '918 does not disclose the claim 1
limitations multi-mode device and retrieving a network type flag from a
nonvolatile memory of the multi-mode device, App. Br. 5-8.
According to Appellants:
Waltson '918 does not disclose a multi-mode device at all. Instead,
Walston '918 is directed to fast reinstallation of deployed devices and
has nothing to do with the network a device operates upon. In particular
Walston '918 discloses storing a frequency that was previously used by
the device to successfully register with the network (see, e.g., Walston
'918 at Abstract). This stored frequency is not a "network type flag" as
required by claim 1, because a frequency alone cannot identify a
"network type" (a type of network to which the device is connected).
Id. at 5.
Appellants further argue Walston '918 does not disclose that the
nonvolatile memory can store a flag that indicates a network type associated
with the device because "[ w ]hile Walston '918 does disclose storing a
previously successful frequency, the stored frequency has no relation to
whether the device is configured to operate on a first type of network (e.g.,
3
Appeal2015-006550
Application 12/993 ,511
North American DOCSIS) or a second type of network (e.g., European
DOCSIS (euroDOCSIS))" and "[c]ertainly Walston '918 does
not disclose any such relationship." Id. at 6.
The Examiner finds Walston '918 discloses that both a DOCSIS
network and a EuroDOCSIS network are identified based on the frequency
distribution of the network and discloses locking to a frequency stored in its
memory cache. Ans. 3-5 (citing i-fi-f 15, 20, 22); see also Final Act. 5---6
(citing i-fi-f 16, 18; Fig. 1). In particular, the Examiner finds Walston '918
discloses:
one mode (a single frequency to operate on) out of a plurality of
modes (frequencies) stored in a nonvolatile memory, wherein the
network type is represented by the frequency identified in memory
(based on where the frequency is centered at). The Examiner notes
that the claim limitations are broad and only require retrieving a single
network type flag, operating the device using a single network type and
selecting one of two network types. The claims do not require selection
of an actual identification of a EuroDOCSIS network or DOCSIS
net\~1ork, the claims only require selection of operating the device based
on a single network type, therefore by accessing a frequency that
belongs to either a DOCSIS network centered at 6 MHz or a
EuroDOCSIS network centered at 8 MHz, either a first network type or
a second network type is selected to operate the multi-mode device.
Claim 2 of the instant application even recites that a network type flag
corresponds to an actual downstream channel frequency characteristic,
therefore Applicant's argument that "a frequency alone cannot identify
a network type" is moot.
Ans. 3--4.
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings above. Appellant presents no persuasive
argument that the Examiner findings and claim interpretations regarding the
disputed claim limitations are unreasonable or overbroad. Claim terms in a
4
Appeal2015-006550
Application 12/993 ,511
patent application are given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent
with the Specification, as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Crish, 393 F.3d 1253, 1256 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 8, which is not argued separately.
See also Final Act. 6.
Appellants argue independent claim 9 requires "BOTH a network
type flag and a downstream channel frequency" and "[ t ]he Office cannot
simultaneously claim that the stored channel frequency satisfies both the
network type flag and the stored downstream channel frequency." App. Br.
8-9.
The Examiner finds the Walston '918 cache stores scanned
frequencies and new frequencies, wherein the frequencies represent a
network type, discussed supra. Ans. 6. In particular, the Examiner finds
Walston '918 discloses:
Id.
the memory stores configuration information comprising a network
type flag (the initial frequency centered at either 6 MHz or 8MHz
stored in memory) and a downstream channel frequency (a newly
scanned and stored frequency centered at either 6 MHz or 8MHz
depending on where the new location of the multi-mode device is
placed (see again Paragraphs 0015-0016)).
We are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings above. As discussed, supra, the Walston '918
frequency is used as a network type flag, and also employs a new frequency.
Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 9.
5
Appeal2015-006550
Application 12/993 ,511
The § 103 (a) rejections
Regarding independent claim 15, Appellant relies on similar
arguments discussed supra, for claims 1 and 9. App. Br. 9--11. The
Examiner finds Walston '918 teaches the limitations of independent claim 15
except restarting the multi-mode device and relies on Walston '685 for this
limitation. Final Act. 7-8, 11; Ans. 6 (citing Walston '685, i-f 16).
We are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and agree, instead,
with the Examiner's findings that the combination of Walston '918 and '685
teach all the limitations of claim 15.
In view of the above, we sustain the rejection of claim 15, and
dependent claims 16-19 as these claims are not argued separately. We also
sustain the rejection of dependent claims 2-7 and 10-14 as these claims
depend from independent claims 1 or 9, discussed supra, and are not argued
separately. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1, 8, and 9 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b).
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 2-7 and 10-19
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
6