Ex Parte Wu et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jul 20, 2016

12031496 (P.T.A.B. Jul. 20, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/031,496 02/14/2008
23446 7590 07/22/2016
MCANDREWS HELD & MALLOY, LTD
500 WEST MADISON STREET
SUITE 3400
CHICAGO, IL 60661
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Zong Liang Wu
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
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
OSJM-198062
(E070002USU4)
2680
EXAMINER
PHAM,TITOQ
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2466
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/22/2016 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):
mhmpto@mcandrews-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ZONG LIANG WU, RONALD LEE, and
ANTON MONK
Appeal 2015-00114 7
Application 12/031,496
Technology Center 2400
Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a final rejection of
claims 1-14, 46-49, and 64---67. Claims 15--45, 50-63, and 68-77 have been
withdrawn. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Entropic
Communications, Inc. (App. Br. 1.)
Appeal2015-001147
Application 12/031,496
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter with disputed limitations emphasized:
1. A method for managing data transmission m a mesh
network, comprising:
(a) allocating a prescribed bandwidth on a network
resource for data being transmitted or received in accordance
with a prescribed quality of service guarantee identified in a
request of a first request type;
(b) transmitting first data in accordance with the request
of the first request type to or from at least one requestor on the
network resource using a first portion of the prescribed
bandwidth;
( c) transmitting second data according to a request of a
second request type on the network resource to or from one of
the at least one requestor, the second data transmitted or received
without a quality of service guarantee using a second portion of
the prescribed bandwidth if the first portion of the prescribed
bandwidth is less than the prescribed bandwidth.
REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 1, 4, 13, 14, 46, 49, 64, and 66 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Walton (US 2005/0111462 Al;
published May 26, 2005) and Hanuni (US 2008/0268855 Al; published Oct.
30, 2008). (Final Act. 2-5.)
Claims 2, 3, 47, 48, and 65 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Walton, Hanuni, and Vinokour (US 7,738,375 Bl;
issued June 15, 2010). (Final Act. 5---6.)
2
Appeal2015-001147
Application 12/031,496
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walton, Hanuni, and Zeitak (US 2009/0193144 Al;
published July 30, 2009). (Final Act. 6-7.)
Claim 6 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walton, Hanuni, Zeitak, and Wang (US 2005/0276219
Al; Dec. 15, 2005). (Final Act. 7-8.)
Claims 7-10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walton, Hanuni, and Liu (US 2003/0095562 Al;
published May 22, 2003). (Final Act. 8-10.)
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walton, Hanuni, Liu, and Chakravorty (US 2002/0044553
Al; published Apr. 18, 2002). (Final Act. 10-11.)
Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walton, Hanuni, and Lau (US 2007/0130246 Al;
published June 7, 2007). (Final Act. 11-12.)
Claim 67 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Walton, Hanuni, and Kim (US 2009/0190549 Al;
published July 30, 2009). (Final Act. 12.)
ISSUES
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding Walton teaches or suggests
"allocating a prescribed bandwidth on a network resource," as recited in
claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 46 and 64?
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding Walton teaches or suggests
"transmitting first data in accordance with the request of the first request
3
Appeal2015-001147
Application 12/031,496
type ... transmitting second data according to a request of a second request
type," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 46 and 64?
Issue 3: Did the Examiner err in finding Walton teaches or suggests
"transmitting first data ... using a first portion of the prescribed bandwidth"
and then "transmitting second data ... using a second portion of the
prescribed bandwidth if the first portion of the prescribed bandwidth is less
than the prescribed bandwidth," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claims 46 and 64?
Issue 4: Did the Examiner improperly combine Walton and Hanuni?
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner's rejections in light of Appellants'
arguments that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellants'
conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Final Office Action (Final Act. 2-14) from which this
appeal is taken and the findings and reasons set forth in the Examiner's
Answer in response to Appellants' Appeal Brief (Ans. 13-22). We highlight
and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
Issue 1
Appellants contend Walton does not teach or suggest "allocating a
prescribed bandwidth on a network resource," as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 46 and 64. (App. Br. 9-11; Reply Br. 3.)
Specifically, Appellants argue Walton's data traffic transmission time slots,
FR, are allocated "time periods during which an OFDM subcarrier(s) can
4
Appeal2015-001147
Application 12/031,496
transmit" but those data traffic transmission time "slots are not analogous to
actual bandwidth." (App. Br. 10-11.)
We are not persuaded. Initially, while Appellants argue that Walton
defines bandwidth as "a distinct and different concept from slots/FR" (id. at
10), Appellants' Specification states that "the basic bandwidth unit is a time
slot" (Spec. i-f 67). Appellants contend that "although in one embodiment of
the present application, bandwidth can be considered to be a time slot, in
another, it cannot" (Reply Br. 3). Appellants have not persuasively shown,
however, that "bandwidth" as recited in claim 1 excludes time slots.
Accordingly, in light of the Specification and the claim language, we
conclude the broadest reasonable interpretation of "bandwidth" as recited in
claims 1, 46, and 64 encompasses time slots.
Under that construction, we are unpersuaded the Examiner errs in
finding Walton teaches or suggests "allocating a prescribed bandwidth on a
network resource," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 46
and 64. Specifically, the Examiner finds, and we agree, Walton reserves a
number of data traffic transmission time slots, FR, for Quality of Service
(QoS) data transmission over a network. (Final Act. 2-3 (citing Walton
i-f 49); see also Ans. 14.)
Additionally, Appellants' argument that Walton's QoS data queue is
not a "prescribed bandwidth that is actually allocated" (App. Br. 10) is
unpersuasive because it is not responsive to the Examiner's rejection. In
particular, Appellants' argument does not address the Examiner's finding
that Walton's data traffic transmission slots, FR, discloses an allocated
prescribed bandwidth (Final Act. 2-3 (citing Walton i-f 49); Ans. 14).
5
Appeal2015-001147
Application 12/031,496
For the reasons discussed above, we are not persuaded the Examiner
erred by finding Walton teaches or suggests "allocating a prescribed
bandwidth on a network resource," within the meaning of claims 1, 46, and
64.
Issue 2
Appellants contend Walton does not teach or suggest "transmitting
first data in accordance with the request of the first request type ...
transmitting second data according to a request of a second request type," as
recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 46 and 64. (App. Br. 9, 11;
Reply Br. 3-5.) Specifically, Appellants argue Walton "operate[s] based on
the use of a single type of request, merely relying on queue/priority" to
transmit data, rather than relying on first and second request types to
transmit data. (App. Br. 11 (citing Walton i-fi-175-76).)
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Walton
teaches QoS requests and Best Effort Traffic (BET) requests which schedule
respective data for transmission. (Ans. 16-17 (citing Walton i-fi-143--45, Fig.
3).) Indeed, Figure 3 of Walton teaches two different data transmission
queues, QoS queues and BET queues, which respectively process data
transmission requests using a QoS Scheduling function and a BET
Scheduling function. (Walton i-fi-145--46.)
Appellants' arguments are not persuasive because the arguments do
not address the Examiner's findings regarding Walton's BET Scheduling
function. Appellants highlight the operation of Walton's QoS Scheduling
function (App. Br. 11 (citing Walton i-fi-175-76); Reply Br. 3--4), but do not
address respective data transmission requests for Walton's QoS queues and
6
Appeal2015-001147
Application 12/031,496
BET queues. Thus, Appellants have not shown error in the Examiner's
finding (with which we agree) that there are two types of data transmission
requests respectively corresponding to data transmitted via the QoS queue
and data transmitted via the BET queue. (See Ans. 16-18 (citing Walton
i-fi-143--45, Fig. 3).) Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in
finding Walton teaches or suggests "transmitting first data in accordance
with the request of the first request type ... transmitting second data
according to a request of a second request type," as recited in claim 1 and
similarly recited in claims 46 and 64.
Issue 3
Appellants contend Walton does not teach or suggest "transmitting
first data ... using a first portion of the prescribed bandwidth" and then
"transmitting second data ... using a second portion of the prescribed
bandwidth if the first portion of the prescribed bandwidth is less than the
prescribed bandwidth," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims
46 and 64. (App. Br. 9, 11-12; Reply Br. 5-6). Specifically, Appellants
argue Walton teaches "satisfying the 'same' [i.e., first] request with
additional capacity, rather than allocating that additional/unused capacity for
use with 'another' [i.e., second] request." (App. Br. 11-12 (citing Walton
i-fi-139--40, 81-82); Reply Br. 5 (citing Walton i-fi-1 43--45).) Appellants further
argue Walton uses any remaining allocated bandwidth to transmit the "same
type/class of data [i.e., first data] that is being used to fill the FR portion of
7
Appeal2015-001147
Application 12/031,496
the frame rather than second data." (App. Br. 12 (citing Walton ilil 85-97);
Reply Br. 6.)
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds, and
we agree, Walton reserves a number of data traffic transmission time slots,
FR, for QoS traffic transmission over a network. (Final Act. 2-3 (citing
Walton i-f 49).) The Examiner further finds, and we agree, if Walton's QoS
traffic does not use all of the reserved transmission time slots, FR, the
remaining time slots can be used to transmit BET traffic. (Id. at 3 (citing
Walton i-f 97, Figs. 6, 8).) Indeed, the Examiner highlights (id.) step 880 in
Figure 8 of Walton, labeled "ALLOCATE REMAINING CAPACITY TO BEST
EFFORT TRAFFIC."
Appellants' arguments highlight features the Examiner does not rely
on regarding the disputed limitation and do not address the Examiner's
finding that Walton's remaining FR time slots transmit BET traffic. (See
App. Br. 11-12.) Indeed, Walton teaches "allocating remaining capacity
subsequent to QoS scheduling" in which "any remaining capacity is
allocated to best effort traffic." (Walton i-fi-192, 97, Fig. 8.) Accordingly, we
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Walton teaches or suggests
"transmitting first data ... using a first portion of the prescribed bandwidth"
and then "transmitting second data ... using a second portion of the
prescribed bandwidth if the first portion of the prescribed bandwidth is less
than the prescribed bandwidth," as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in
claims 46 and 64.
8
Appeal2015-001147
Application 12/031,496
Issue 4
Appellants argue the Examiner improperly combined Walton and
Hanuni because "substituting a wireless mesh network for a wireless peer-
to-peer network ... does not amount to any sort of reasonable motivation."
(App. Br. 13-14.)
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, "Walton
teaches resource allocation in a wireless network." (Final Act. 3 (citing
Walton i-f 17, Fig. 1 ). ) The Examiner further finds, and we agree, Hanuni
teaches a type of wireless network, specifically, a mesh network. (Id. at 4
(citing Hanuni i-f 26, Abstract).) The Examiner modifies Walton to substitute
Hanuni's wireless mesh network for Walton's wireless network. (Id.) The
Examiner finds, and we agree, that substituting of one known network (i.e.,
Walton's wireless network) for another (i.e., Hanuni's mesh wireless
network), would have the predictable result of communicating/allocating
resources to terminals in the substitute network. (Ans. 21-22.) In addition,
Appellants have not persuasively explained why such a modification would
have been "uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary skill in the
art" or "represented an unobvious step over the prior art." See Leapfrog
Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly combined
Walton and Hanuni.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2-
14, 47--49, and 65----67 which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 46,
or 64. (See App. Br. 13-14.) For the reasons set forth above, therefore, we
9
Appeal2015-001147
Application 12/031,496
are not persuaded the Examiner erred in rejecting these claims.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejections of claims 2-14, 47--49,
and 65-67. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
DECISION
For the above reasons, the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-14,
46--49, and 64--67 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)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
10