Ex Parte Wong et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 23, 2018

14296733 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 23, 2018)

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.
14/296,733 06/05/2014 Chiu Ngok Eric Wong BP32587 7896
51472 7590 02/27/2018
GARLICK & MARKISON (BRCM)
106 E. 6th Street, Suite 900
AUSTIN, TX 78701
EXAMINER
ZHANG, ZHENSHENG
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2474
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/27/2018 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):
MMURDOCK@ TEXASPATENTS .COM
bpierotti @ texaspatents .com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte CHIU NGOK ERIC WONG, RON PORAT, NIHAR JINDAL,
MATTHEW JAMES FISCHER, and VINKO ERCEG1
Appeal 2017-007286
Application 14/296,733
Technology Center 2400
Before MARC S. HOFF, JAMES W. DEJMEK, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 The Applicant is Broadcom Corporation, which is also the real party in
interest according to Appellants. App. Br. 3.
Appeal 2017-007286
Application 14/296,733
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellants’ application relates to multiple network manager
coordination within single user, multiple user, multiple access, and/or
MIMO wireless communications. Spec. 1:20-22. Claim 1 illustrates the
appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. A wireless communication device comprising:
a communication interface; and
a processor configured to:
support first communications, via the communication
interface, with a plurality of other wireless communication
devices that includes a first other wireless communication
device and a second other wireless communication device based
on at least one IEEE 802.11 communication protocol; and
support second communications, via the communication
interface, with a third other wireless communication device that
is configured to support third communications based on the at
least one IEEE 802.11 communication protocol with the
plurality of other wireless communication devices, wherein the
second communications include messages for coordinating the
first communications and the third communications, for
selecting the wireless communication device or the third other
wireless communication device initially to serve as network
manager respectively for each of the plurality of other wireless
communication devices, and for switching at least one of the
wireless communication device or the third other wireless
communication device subsequently to serve as network
manager respectively for at least one of the plurality of other
wireless communication devices based on characterization of
the first communications and the third communications as
performed by at least one of the wireless communication device
or the third other wireless communication device, wherein the
wireless communication device serves as a first network
manager for a first subset of the plurality of other wireless
2
Appeal 2017-007286
Application 14/296,733
communication device, and wherein the third other wireless
communication device serves as a second network manager for
a second subset of the plurality of other wireless
communication device.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1-3 and 5-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
unpatentable over Dekorsy et al. (US 2010/0322171 Al; Dec. 23, 2010) and
Helbig (US 2006/0217067 Al; Sept. 28, 2006). Final Act. 4-14.
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Dekorsy, Helbig, and Berberana et al. (US 2014/0241276 Al; Aug. 28,
2014). Final Act. 14-16.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants’
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Final Action from which this
appeal is taken; and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the
Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief. We concur
with the Examiner’s conclusions. We highlight the following additional
points.
Appellants argue the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as
unpatentable over Dekorsy and Helbig. App. Br. 8-21; Reply Br. 4-15.
Specifically, Appellants argue Dekorsy does not teach or suggest
communications among its Access Points (APs). App. Br. at 9-19.
Appellants argue an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been motivated
to modify Dekorsy to allow communications between the APs because the
central baseband processor 301 coordinates the operation of the APs. Id.
3
Appeal 2017-007286
Application 14/296,733
Appellants have not persuaded us of Examiner error. Appellants
concede Dekorsy teaches centralized coordination of its APs by baseband
processor 301. App. Br. 9-10 (citing Dekorsy, Figs. 3, 4; 137, 146). As
pointed out by Appellants, the Examiner does not rely on Dekorsy for
communication among the APs, instead relying on Helbig for such
communication. Id. at 9 (citing Final Act. 3). The Examiner finds, and we
agree, Helbig teaches APs communicating directly with each other to
coordinate network coverage for terminals. Ans. 3 (citing Helbig 7-9).
The Examiner further finds, and we agree, an ordinarily skilled artisan
would have been motivated to combine Helbig’s self-coordination with
Dekorsy’s APs to efficiently utilize network resources, improve system
performance, and eliminate the need for a centralized controller. Id.
Appellants’ arguments that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have been
motivated to combine these features do not persuasively identify error in
Examiner’s rationale.
Moreover, Appellants’ arguments that Helbig teaches away from
Dekorsy (see App. Br. 19) are unpersuasive for two reasons. First,
Appellants argue Helbig teaches away from Dekorsy, but the test is whether
Helbig or Dekorsy teach away from the claimed solution. See In re Fulton,
391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (“The prior art’s mere disclosure of
more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of
these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or
otherwise discourage the solution claimed.”). Second, Appellants have not
persuasively argued that Helbig actually criticizes, discredits, or otherwise
discourages the claimed solution. See id.
4
Appeal 2017-007286
Application 14/296,733
Appellants also argue modifying Dekorsy to use de-centralized
coordination would defeat its intended purpose of centralized network
management. App. Br. 9. We disagree. As found by the Examiner, the
purpose of Dekorsy is managing the APs. Ans. 3; see also Dekorsy ^ 2
(“[t]he present invention relates . . . more particularly[] to devices and
methods for improving resource allocation in wireless communication
networks.”). Appellants have not persuasively identified any error in the
Examiner’s finding that Helbig’s de-centralized coordination would
efficiently utilize network resources, improve system performance, and
eliminate the need for a centralized controller.
For these reasons, Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 1 as unpatentable over Dekorsy and Helbig. We,
therefore, sustain the obviousness rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the
obviousness rejections of independent claims 9 and 14, as well as dependent
claims 2-8, 10-13, and 15-20, for which Appellants do not offer separate
arguments. App. Br. 21-24.
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1-20.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See
37C.F.R. §41.50(f)(2016).
AFFIRMED
5