Ex Parte WentinkDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 18, 201311035065 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 18, 2013) 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. 11/035,065 01/14/2005 Menzo Wentink 088245-2658 1565 23524 7590 09/19/2013 FOLEY & LARDNER LLP 3000 K STREET N.W. SUITE 600 WASHINGTON, DC 20007-5109 EXAMINER AJAYI, JOEL ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2646 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 09/19/2013 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte MENZO WENTINK _____________ Appeal 2011-002515 Application 11/035,065 Technology Center 2600 ______________ Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, TREVOR M. JEFFERSON and DANIEL N. FISHMAN, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2011-002515 Application 11/035,065 2 This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiners’ Final Rejection of claims 21 through 57. We reverse. INVENTION The invention is directed to power management in wireless devices connected via a direct link. See paragraphs 0003 and 0008 of Appellant’s Specification. Claim 21 is representative of the invention and reproduced below: 21. A method for power management of a direct wireless link between a first and second wireless device, the method comprising: at the first wireless device, establishing a direct wireless link with the second wireless device, the first and second wireless devices forming a wireless ad hoc network or operating as clients of a same wireless infrastructure network; transmitting, from the first wireless device to the second wireless device via the direct wireless link, a frame including a time value indicating a time duration that both the first wireless device and second wireless device should enter a power save mode; at the first wireless device, entering a power save mode and suspending the direct wireless link for a duration determined based on the time value; and exiting from the power save mode and resuming the direct wireless link at a time determined based on the time value. Appeal 2011-002515 Application 11/035,065 3 REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 39, 40, 42, and 43 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Rejection 4.1 The Examiner has rejected claims 21 through 44, and 54 through 57 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Lindskog (U.S. 2001/0031626 A1; Oct. 18, 2001). Answer 3-10. The Examiner has rejected claims 45 through 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Lindskog and Karaoguz (U.S. 2002/0159544 A1; Oct. 31, 2002). Answer 10-16. ISSUES Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 Appellant argues on pages 18 and 19 of the Appeal Brief, and page 7 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection under 112 is in error. The issue raised by these arguments is: Did the Examiner err in finding that the originally filed specification fails to demonstrate that Appellant possessed the invention of the first and second wireless devices entering a power save mode? 1 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Final Rejection mailed January 22, 2010, Examiner’s Answer mailed on September 21 2010, Appellant’s Appeal Brief dated July 20, 2010, and Appellant’s Reply Brief dated November 4, 2010. Appeal 2011-002515 Application 11/035,065 4 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Claims 21 through 38, and 54 through 57. Appellant argues on pages 25 through 28 of the Appeal Brief, and pages 8 through 13 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 21, 27, 29, and 35 is in error. The issue raised by these arguments which is dispositive of the appeal of these claims is: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lindskog teaches transmitting a frame including a time value indicating a time duration that both a first and second wireless device should enter a power save mode as recited in each of independent claims 21, 27, 29 and 35? Claims 39 through 44 Appellant argues on pages 19 through 24 of the Appeal Brief, and pages 13 through 17 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 39, 40, 42 and 43 is in error. The issue raised by these arguments which is dispositive of the appeal of these claims is: Did the Examiner err in finding that Lindskog teaches transmitting a frame including a power management bit indicating that the direct wireless link should be suspended and both a first and second wireless device should enter a power save mode as recited in each of independent claims 39, 40, 42 and 43? Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Appellant argues on pages 28 through 36 of the Appeal Brief, and pages 17 through 19 of the Reply Brief, that the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 45, 47, 50 and 52 is in error. The issue raised by these arguments which is dispositive of the appeal of these claims is: Did the Appeal 2011-002515 Application 11/035,065 5 Examiner err in finding that the combination of Lindskog and Karaoguz teaches receiving a QoS-Null frame at a wireless device from another wireless device indicating the start of a service period in which the wireless device is not in a power save mode as recited in each of independent claims 45, 47, 50 and 52? ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner’s rejection and the Examiner’s response to the Appellant’s arguments. We concur with Appellant’s conclusion that the Examiner erred in finding: a) that the originally filed specification fails to demonstrate that Appellant possessed the invention of the first and second wireless devices entering a power save mode; b) that Lindskog teaches transmitting a frame including a time value indicating a time duration that both a first and second wireless device should enter a power save mode; c) that Lindskog teaches a transmitting a frame including a power management bit indicating that the direct wireless link should be suspended and both a first and second wireless device should enter a power save mode; and d) that the combination of Lindskog and Karaoguz teaches receiving a QoS-Null frame at a wireless device from another wireless device indicating the start of a service period in which the wireless device is not in a power save mode. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112 The Examiner did not address this rejection in the Answer, (i.e., the Examiner did not restate the rejection; the Examiner did not identify the rejection as withdrawn; and the Examiner has not responded to Appellant’s Appeal 2011-002515 Application 11/035,065 6 arguments directed to the rejection). As the Examiner has not on the record withdrawn the rejection, we have reviewed the rejection as stated in the Final rejection and reviewed Appellant’s arguments in the Briefs as they apply to the rejection stated in the Final Rejection. Appellant’s arguments on page 18 and 19 of the Brief identify portions of the specification that provide written support for the invention. We concur with Appellant. On their face, the cited portions appear to support the invention and the Examiner has not provided any rebuttal to Appellant’s arguments. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) Claims 21 through 38, and 54 through 57. Each of independent claims 21, 27, 29, and 35 recites a limitation directed to transmitting a frame including a time value indicating a time duration that both a first and second wireless device should enter a power save mode. The Examiner in response to Appellant’s arguments cites to paragraphs 21, 31, and 32 of to show this feature. Answer 3, 4, and 16. Specifically, the Examiner states that since Lindskog, discusses “[a]n MT, not the MT, can enter a low power mode . . . indicates the possibility of more than one device; All sleeping MT [mobile terminals] will monitor any wake-up message.†Answer 16. We disagree with the Examiner’s finding that Lindskog teaches transmitting a frame indicating a time duration during which two wireless devices should enter a power save mode. While the cited passages identifies that a mobile terminal may request to enter a Appeal 2011-002515 Application 11/035,065 7 power saving mode, we do not find that the cited portions of Lindskog teach transmitting one frame which includes an indication that two wireless devices are to enter a power save mode, or that a frame indicates a time they are to spend in the power save mode. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of claims 21 through 38 and 54 through 57. Claims 39 through 44 Independent claims 39, 40, 42 and 43 each recite a limitation directed to transmitting a frame including a power management bit indicating that the direct wireless link should be suspended and both a first and second wireless device should enter a power save mode. Similar to the Examiner’s findings regarding claims 21 through 38, the Examiner cites to paragraphs 31 and 32 to show this feature. As discussed above, we do not find that these paragraphs of Lindskog disclose transmitting one frame which includes an indication that two wireless devices are to enter a power save mode. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 39 through 44. Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) Each of independent claims 45, 47, 50 and 52 recites a limitation directed to receiving a QoS-Null frame at a wireless device from another wireless device indicating the start of a service period in which the wireless device is not in a power save mode. In response to Appellant’s arguments the Examiner finds Karaoguz to teach the feature. Specifically, the Examiner cites to Karaoguz’s paragraph 63 Appeal 2011-002515 Application 11/035,065 8 as teaching a guaranteed time slot for transmitting data frame and states that it will “obviously include a start period whereby both devices will be able to transmit and receive.†Answer 17. Further, the Examiner cites Karaoguz’s para. 64 as supporting the finding that this time slot involves QoS provisions, which the Examiner finds “will include QoS-Null frames, as is well known in the art.†Answer 18. We disagree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the cited portions of Karaoguz teach receiving the QoS-Null frame indicating the start of a service period in which the wireless device is not in a power save mode as claimed. We concur with Appellant’s argument that the mere disclosure of a guaranteed time slot carrying QoS provisions does not mean that the guaranteed slot period is a QoS-Null frame as claimed. Accordingly, we will not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 45 through 53 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 21 through 57 is reversed. REVERSED ke Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation