Ex Parte Wang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 28, 2017

13636184 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 28, 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.
13/636,184 09/20/2012 Dong Wang 2010P00189WOUS 7215
24737 7590 03/02/2017
PTTTT TPS TNTFT T FfTTTAT PROPFRTY fr STANDARDS
EXAMINER
465 Columbus Avenue JUSTUS, RALPH H
Suite 340
Valhalla, NY 10595 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2649
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/02/2017 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):
marianne. fox @ philips, com
debbie.henn @philips .com
patti. demichele @ Philips, com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DONG WANG, HONGQIANG ZHAI, and
MONISHA GHOSH
Appeal 2016-007262
Application 13/636,184
Technology Center 2600
Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, IRVIN E. BRANCH, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
BRANCH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of claims
1—21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Appeal 2016-007262
Application 13/636,184
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to centralized dynamic channel allocation for
medical body area networks. Abstract.
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. An apparatus comprising:
a plurality of medical body area network (MBAN)
systems, each MBAN system comprising a plurality of network
nodes intercommunicating within the MBAN system via short
range wireless communication;
a central network communicating with the MBAN systems
via longer range communication that is different from the short
range wireless communication; and
a central frequency agility sub system associated with the
central network and configured to communicate with the MBAN
systems via the longer range communication, the central
frequency agility sub system receiving current channel quality
information for a plurality of available channels for the short
range wireless communication and allocating the MBAN
systems amongst the available channels via the longer range
communication based at least on the received current channel
quality information.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
Claims 1—3, 5—7, 14, 16, 17, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
§ U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Abedi (US 2009/0191906 Al;
published July 30, 2009) and Devaul (US 2006/0224048 Al; published
October 6, 2006). Ans. 2—7.
Claims 8, 11—13, 15, 20, and 21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35
§ U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over Abedi, Devaul, and Fanning
(US 2007/0054682 Al; published Mar. 8, 2007). Ans. 8-14.
2
Appeal 2016-007262
Application 13/636,184
Claims 4 and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abedi, Devaul, Fanning, and de Silva (Inter-User
Interference in Body Sensor Networks: Preliminary Investigation and an
InfrastructureBased Solution, B. de Silva, A. Natarajan, and M. Motani,
National University of Singapore, 2009 Body Sensor Networks, IEEE
Computer Society, pp. 35—40, June 2009). Ans. 14—17.
Claim 9 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abedi, Devaul, Fanning, and Tolentino
(US 2011/0081858 Al; published Apr. 7, 2011). Ans. 17-18.
Claim 10 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Abedi, Devaul, Fanning, and Ahuja
(US 2010/0238798 Al; published Sept. 23, 2010). Ans. 18-19.
CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds Abedi discloses all elements of claim 1, except
Abedi does not disclose short range wireless and long-range communication,
for which the Examiner cites Devaul. Ans. 2—A. The Examiner finds a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine
Abedi and Devaul “in order to provide nodes communications with short-
range links and central network communications with a different longer
range link.” Id. 2—A.
Appellants argue Abedi does not disclose a “central frequency agility
sub-system associated with the central network and configured to: (1)
communicate with the MB AN systems via the longer range communication;
and (2) allocating the MB AN systems amongst the available channels via the
longer range communication based at least on the received current channel
3
Appeal 2016-007262
Application 13/636,184
quality information.” App. Br. 11. The crux of Appellants’ argument is that
“Abedi does not disclose an apparatus in which the RANs [radio access
network] communicate in a centralized manner (e.g., within the RANs), but
rather Abedi discloses a decentralized manner in which the RANs
communicate with each other.” Id. 12. See also App. Br. 7—13; Reply Br.
3-5.
ANALYSIS
We are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 for
the reasons stated by the Examiner. Ans. 2-4, 19—21. We sustain the
rejection of claim 1. We adopt the Examiner’s findings and conclusion that
claim 1 is obvious over Abedi and Devaul. Id. We highlight the following
for emphasis.
In response to Appellants’ argument that “[t]he frequency agility
system disclosed in Abedi is thus a decentralized system” (App. Br. 10), the
Examiner points out that “Abedi discloses ‘a new dynamic centralized
channel allocation process’ for the spectrum assignment and sharing
process.” Ans. 20 (citing Abedi 1150 (“the method embodying the present
invention performs a new dynamic centralized channel allocation process
based on the knowledge of the troubled channels”)). In view of this express
disclosure of Abedi, we are unpersuaded of error based on Appellants’
arguments. App. Br. 7—13; Reply Br. 3—5. Appellants do not persuasively
rebut the Examiner’s finding that Abedi discloses centralized channel
allocation. Ans. 20.
Moreover, we are unpersuaded of error in the Examiner’s rejection of
claim 1 for the additional reason that Appellants’ arguments address only the
4
Appeal 2016-007262
Application 13/636,184
disclosure of Abedi and do not consider what the combined teachings of
Abedi and Devaul would have taught or suggested to one over ordinary skill
in the art. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references.
See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc.,
800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Hence, to whatever extent Appellants
argue error because the “central frequency agility sub system” of Abedi is
not “configured to communicate with the MB AN systems via the longer
range communication” (Reply Br. 5), we are unpersuaded of error in view of
Devaul’s disclosure of short range wireless and long-range communication
(Devaul 1280), which Appellants do not contest.
Because Appellants argue claim 16 on the same basis as claim 1 (App.
Br. 13; Reply Br. 5—8), we sustain the rejection of claim 16. We also sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 5—7, 14, 17, and 19, which depend
from claim 1 or claim 16 and which Appellants do not separately argue.
Claims 8, 11—13, 15, 20, and 21
Independent claim 8 recites that a “central frequency agility sub
system” is configured to “construct an ordered list of available channels that
is sorted at least on current channel quality information for the available
channels, and send the ordered list of available channels to the plurality of
MB AN systems via the longer range communication.” The Examiner cites
Fanning for the ordered list of available channels sorted by channel quality
and concludes that claim 8 would have been obvious in view of the
combined teachings of Abedi, Devaul, and Fanning. Ans. 9-10.
5
Appeal 2016-007262
Application 13/636,184
Appellants argue claim 8 on the basis that “such a modification would
require fundamentally changing the decentralized frequency allocation
system of Abedi.” App. Br. 14.
We find Appellants’ arguments unpersuasive of error. We understand
Appellants are arguing that bodily incorporating Fanning’s ordered list into
Abedi’s system would require fundamentally changing Abedi. We find this
argument unpersuasive because we do not agree Abedi discloses a
decentralized frequency allocation system. Moreover, “[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 .... Rather,
the test is what the combined teachings of those references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art.” Keller at 425. See also In re
Sneed, 710 F.2d 1544, 1550 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (“[I]t is not necessary that the
inventions of the references be physically combinable to render obvious the
invention under review.”); and In re Nievelt, 482 F.2d 965, 968 (CCPA
1973) (“Combining the teachings of references does not involve an ability to
combine their specific structures.”).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 and of
claims 11—13, 20, and 21, argued on the same basis. App. Br. 15. We also
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, which depends from claim 1.
Appellants argue claim 15 on the basis of Fanning not curing the
deficiencies of Abedi and Devaul with respect to claim 1 {id.), without
persuasive argument or evidence.
Claims 4, 9, 10, and 18
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 4, 9, 10, and 18,
which Appellants argue on the same basis as previously-discussed claims,
6
Appeal 2016-007262
Application 13/636,184
adding only that Fanning, de Silva, Tolentino, and/or Ahuja do not cure the
deficiencies of Abedi and Devaul, without persuasive argument or evidence.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—21.
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
7