Ex Parte WentinkDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 6, 201813770423 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 6, 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. 13/770,423 02/19/2013 Maarten Menzo Wentink 130567US 4561 15055 7590 02/08/2018 Patterson & Sheridan, L.L.P. Qualcomm 24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600 Houston, TX 77046 EXAMINER ASEFA, DEBEBE A ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/08/2018 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): qu alcomm @ pattersonsheridan .com PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com ocpat_uspto@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 2016-005973 Application 13/770,423 Technology Center 2400 Before CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, JON M. JURGOVAN, and STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1—32. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. 1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Qualcomm Incorporated. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2016-005973 Application 13/770,423 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Invention According to the Specification, the invention “generally relate[s] to wireless communications and, more particularly, to avoiding collisions due to hidden wireless nodes.” Spec. 12.2 The Specification explains that the invention “provide[s] techniques and apparatus for starting an extended idle interval in an effort to avoid collisions with transmissions from hidden wireless nodes.” Abstract. Exemplary Claim Independent claim 1 exemplifies the claims at issue and reads as follows (with formatting added for clarity): 1. An apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: a receiver configured to receive a multi-user (MU) transmission comprising at least one packet for the apparatus; and a processing system configured to: determine a checksum of the at least one packet; and start an idle interval associated with the apparatus after receiving the MU transmission if the at least one packet comprises a frame check sequence (FCS) that corresponds to the checksum, wherein the idle interval includes at least enough time for transmission of an acknowledgment (ACK) frame. 2 This decision uses the following abbreviations: “Spec.” for the Specification, filed February 19, 2013; “Final Act.” for the Final Office Action, mailed August 24, 2015; “App. Br.” for the Appeal Brief, filed December 14, 2015; “Ans.” for the Examiner’s Answer, mailed April 1, 2016; and “Reply Br.” for the Reply Brief, filed May 18, 2016. 2 Appeal 2016-005973 Application 13/770,423 App. Br. 18 (Claims App.). The Prior Art Supporting the Rejections on Appeal As evidence of unpatentability, the Examiner relies on the following prior art: Benveniste et al. (“Benveniste”) Dai et al. (“Dai”) Wentink et al. (“Wentink”) US 2004/0095911 Al US 2014/0079016 Al US 8,897,209 B2 May 20, 2004 Mar. 20, 2014 (filed Oct. 25,2011) Nov. 25, 2014 (filed July 10, 2009) The Rejections on Appeal Claims 1—6, 11—16, 21—26, 31, and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dai and Benveniste. Final Act. 6—16. Claims 7—10, 17—20, and 27—30 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Dai, Benveniste, and Wentink. Final Act. 16— 26. ANAFYSIS We have reviewed the rejections of claims 1—32 in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner erred. Based on the record before us and for the reasons explained below, we concur with Appellant’s contention that the Examiner erred in finding that the cited portions of Dai and Benveniste teach or suggest an “idle interval” as recited in independent claims 1, 11,21,31, and 32. The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 1—6, 11—16, 21—26, 31, and 32 Appellant argues that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1, 11,21, 31, and 32 because Dai and Benveniste do not teach or suggest an “idle 3 Appeal 2016-005973 Application 13/770,423 interval” that “includes at least enough time for transmission of an acknowledgment (ACK) frame” when a received packet “comprises a frame check sequence (FCS) that corresponds to the checksum.” See App. Br. 9— 11; Reply Br. 2-4. In particular, Appellant contends that Dai: teaches that “devices may also use request to send (RTS) and clear to send (CTS) messages to access the channel,” such that “a transmitting device sends an RTS message to the intended receiving device [and if] a receiving device is available, it may reply back with a CTS message after waiting a short interffame space (SIFS) period.” App. Br. 9-10 (alteration in original) (quoting Dai 1117). In addition, Appellant contends that Dai “teaches that ‘after the successful reception of a frame requiring acknowledgment, transmission of the ACK frame may commence after an SIFS period.’” Id. at 10 (quoting Dai 1158). According to Appellant, Dai “teaches, at most, conventional FCS scenarios, such as those related to waiting a SIFS period when the FCS calculated matches the value in the FCS field and the RTS message is received without error.” Reply Br. 3. Further, Appellant asserts that Benveniste: teaches an error scenario for when a bad reception occurs and a frame is received with errors. In such a case, a checksum calculated over the bad frame would not match an expected checksum value and an “EIFS interval providing] enough time for the receiving station to send an acknowledgment (ACK) frame,” is used. App. Br. 11 (alteration in original) (quoting Benveniste 121). Appellant also asserts that Benveniste “teaches that an [extended interffame space] EIFS interval is utilized when a bad reception occurs” and “does not teach or 4 Appeal 2016-005973 Application 13/770,423 suggest anything other than the conventional usage of an EIFS interval (i.e., the FCS does not match the checksum).” Reply Br. 4. The Examiner finds that “both SIFS and EIFS are waiting periods, or they both are [a] response period to a successful reception.” Ans. 5—6. The Examiner also finds that “the only difference between SIFS and EIFS is one is shorter in length of time than the other.” Id. at 6. Based on the record before us, we agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not adequately explained how the cited portions of Dai and Benveniste teach or suggest the claimed “idle interval” that “includes at least enough time for transmission of an acknowledgment (ACK) frame” when a received packet “comprises a frame check sequence (FCS) that corresponds to the checksum.” More specifically, Dai discloses the conventional use of a short interframe space (SIFS) when an FCS matches a checksum, for example, after successfully receiving a request-to-send (RTS) message or a clear-to-send (CTS) message. See Dai H 117, 121, 123, 158, Figs. 7—9, 12— 13. Benveniste discloses the conventional use of an extended interframe space (EIFS) when an FCS does not match a checksum. See Benveniste 1119-21. The Examiner has not adequately explained how the references teach or suggest use of an EIFS when an FCS matches a checksum. Hence, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 1, 11,21,31, and 32. Claims 2—6 depend directly from claim 1; claims 12—16 depend directly from claim 11; and claims 22—26 depend directly from claim 21. For the reasons discussed regarding the independent claims, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of these dependent claims. 5 Appeal 2016-005973 Application 13/770,423 The § 103(a) Rejection of Claims 7—10, 17—20, and 27—30 Claims 7—10 depend directly or indirectly from claim 1; claims 17—20 depend directly or indirectly from claim 11; and claims 27—30 depend directly or indirectly from claim 21. On this record, the Examiner has not shown how the additionally cited Wentink reference overcomes the deficiency in Dai and Benveniste discussed above for claims 1,11, and 21. Hence, we do not sustain the § 103(a) rejection of claims 7—10, 17—20, and 27—30. Because this determination resolves the appeal with respect to claims 1—32, we need not address Appellant’s other arguments regarding Examiner error. See, e.g., Beloit Corp. v. Valmet Oy, 742 F.2d 1421, 1423 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (explaining that an administrative agency may render a decision based on “a single dispositive issue”). DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1—32. REVERSED 6 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation