Ex Parte Wentink

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 3, 2017

13245555 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 3, 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.
13/245,555 09/26/2011 Maarten Menzo Wentink 102985 1041
23696 7590 02/07/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
NGUYEN, BAO G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/07/2017 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):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAARTEN MENZO WENTINK
Appeal 2016-005228
Application 13/245,555
Technology Center 2400
Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JOHN P. PINKERTON, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1—41, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to
wireless communications. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary:
Appeal 2016-005228
Application 13/245,555
1. An apparatus for wireless communications,
comprising:
a receiver configured to receive a first frame comprising
an indication of a first Media Access Control (MAC) address;
and
a processing system configured to determine how to
parse the received first frame based on the first MAC address.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 12, 13, 24, 25, and 35—38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Elie-Dit-Cosaque (Pub. No. 2006/0133286
Al; June 22, 2006).
Claims 2, 3, 14, 15, 26, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Elie-Dit-Cosaque and Bagchi (US Pub. No.
7,583,649 Bl; Sept. 1,2009).
Claims 4, 5, 16, 17, 28, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Elie-Dit-Cosaque and Shin (US Pub. No.
2009/0064244 Al; Mar. 5, 2009).
Claim 6, 7, 10, 18, 19, 22, 30, 31, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elie-Dit-Cosaque and Yao (US Pub. No.
2007/0189168 Al; Aug. 16, 2007).
Claim 8, 9, 20, 21, 32, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Elie- Dit-Cosaque and Zhu (Pub. No. 2011/0317630
Al; Dec. 29, 2011).
Claims 11, 23, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Elie-Dit-Cosaque, Yao, and IEEE Standards
Association Local and Metropolitan Area Networks Tutorial (“Use
2
Appeal 2016-005228
Application 13/245,555
of the IEEE Assigned Organizationally Unique Identifier with ANSI/IEEE
Std 802-2001 Local and Metropolitan Area Networks”).
ANALYSIS
Anticipation
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s
contentions and the evidence of record. We concur with Appellant’s
contention that the Examiner erred in finding Elie-Dit-Cosaque discloses “a
processing system configured to determine how to parse the received first
frame based on the first MAC address,” as recited in independent claim 1.1
See App. Br. 4—5; Reply Br. 2—3.
The Examiner initially cites Elie-Dit-Cosaque’s paragraphs 21 and 22
for the disputed claim limitation. See Final Act. 2. In response to
Appellant’s arguments, the Examiner cites Elie-Dit-Cosaque’s paragraphs
20 and 24. Ans. 30—31. We have reviewed the cited Elie-Dit-Cosaque’s
paragraphs, and they do not disclose “a processing system configured to
determine how to parse the received first frame based on the first MAC
address,” as required by claim 1. In fact, Elie-Dit-Cosaque’s teaching that
“the test frame 200 is comprised of a frame having the format of a regular
data frame” (Elie-Dit-Cosaque 120) contradicts the Examiner’s
unsubstantiated finding that “the difference in subfields between test frames
and normal frames would implicitly state that the entity receiving the frames
would have to determine ‘how to parse’ the frame received” (Ans. 4).
1 Appellant raises additional arguments. Because the identified issue is
dispositive of the appeal, we do not reach the additional arguments.
3
Appeal 2016-005228
Application 13/245,555
Absent further explanation from the Examiner, we do not see how the cited
Elie-Dit-Cosaque portions disclose the disputed claim limitation.
Because the Examiner fails to provide sufficient evidence or
explanation to support the anticipation rejection, we are constrained by the
record to reverse the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
Each of independent claims 13, 25, and 38 recites a claim limitation
that is substantively similar to the disputed limitation of claim 1. See claims
13, 25, and 38. Therefore, for similar reasons, we reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 13, 25, and 38.
We also reverse the Examiner’s anticipation rejection of
corresponding dependent claims 12, 24, and 35—37.
Obviousness
The Examiner cites additional references for the obviousness rejection
of claims 2—11, 14—23, 26—34, and 39-41. The Examiner relies on Elie-Dit-
Cosaque in the same manner discussed above in the context of claim 1, and
does not rely on the additional references in any manner that remedies the
deficiencies of the underlying anticipation rejection. See Final Act. 3—11.
Accordingly, we reverse the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of
claims 2-11, 14—23, 26-34, and 39-41.
DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1—41.
REVERSED
4