11344880 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2014)

Ex Parte Werenka

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 5, 2014

11344880 (P.T.A.B. May. 5, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE _____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD _____________ Ex parte LEON K. WERENKA _____________ Appeal 2012-001184 Application 11/344,880 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before, HOWARD B. BLANKENSHIP, DAVID M. KOHUT, and STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges. KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 1-20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of these claims. Appeal 2012-001184 Application 11/344,880 2 INVENTION The invention is directed to a method and system for reporting synchronization status in a network of RF receivers. Spec. 2. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below: 1. An RF receiver for use in a network of RF receivers, comprising: a receiver clock; a network controller for exchanging timing information comprised of a network-based time synchronization protocol in order to synchronize the receiver clock to a common time; and a control circuit for generating a status parameter characterizing the synchronization of the receiver clock to the common time. REFERENCES Kou US 5,402,424 Mar. 28, 1995 Yoon US 7,304,981 B2 Dec. 4, 2007 (filed Sep. 9, 2002) REJECTIONS AT ISSUE Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Kou. Ans. 4-7. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Yoon. Ans. 8-20. Appeal 2012-001184 Application 11/344,880 3 ISSUE1,2 Did the Examiner err in finding Yoon discloses, “a status parameter characterizing the synchronization of the receiver clock to the common time,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 6, 12, and 16? ANALYSIS Independent claims 1, 6, 12, and 16, argued together by Appellant (App. Br. 9), each requires the generation of a status parameter that characterizes the synchronization of the receiver clock to a common time or a common network time. The Examiner finds that Yoon’s status parameters that are used to update local clocks meet this limitation. Ans. 21-22. Appellant contends that Yoon’s status parameters are used to determine whether the local clocks are updated, adjusted, or skipped, not as an indication that the clocks are synchronized to a common time. App. Br. 9. We disagree with Appellant. The Examiner finds that Yoon’s flags are set based upon the difference that is calculated between the remote/neighbor node TOD and the local TOD. Ans. 21. Therefore, the Examiner finds that a flag that indicates an adjustment is required “characterizes” the synchronization as requiring the addition/subtraction of a delta time. Ans. 21. We agree that this is a 1 We will not address Appellant’s arguments directed toward the Examiner’s objection to the drawings since it is a petitionable matter and not an appealable matter. App. Br. 4-5. See also MPEP §§ 706.01 and 1201 (9th ed., March 2014); see also Ex Parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1077-78 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). 2 Appellant makes additional arguments with respect to the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-5 as being anticipated by Kou. App. Br. 6-8. We will not address Appellant’s additional arguments since the issues discussed below regarding Yoon are dispositive of the appeal. Appeal 2012-001184 Application 11/344,880 4 characterization of the synchronization since it indicates what must be done in order to synchronize the clocks. Additionally, Appellant argues, and specifically with respect to claim 6, that Yoon does not disclose a “common time.” App. Br. 10. The Examiner finds that Yoon discloses the disputed limitation since Yoon discloses local node 101 that generates a reference time. Ans. 22. Appellant argues that the synchronization of the clock to a neighbor node is not the same as a common network time. App. Br. 10. However, we note that Appellant’s Specification does not provide a specific definition for the term “common network time” or “common time.” Thus, we agree with the Examiner’s interpretation that a common time or common network time is a reference time or a local time of the local node. Ans. 22. We agree with this finding because the reference time is transmitted to a neighboring node in order to update the neighboring node’s local clock. Thus, at least two nodes are synchronized to a common time. For all the reasons indicated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims 1, 6, 12, and 16, and dependent claims 2-5, 7-11, 13-15, and 17-20, which Appellant has indicated are patentable for the reasons the independent claims are patentable. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 6. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in finding Yoon discloses, “a status parameter characterizing the synchronization of the receiver clock to the common time,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 6, 12, and 16. Appeal 2012-001184 Application 11/344,880 5 SUMMARY The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc