Ex Parte Yarvis et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 11, 2013

11206494 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 11, 2013)

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.
11/206,494 08/17/2005 Mark D. Yarvis 111027-150336 6153
31817 7590 06/12/2013
SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C.
PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900
1211 S.W. FIFTH AVE.
PORTLAND, OR 97204
EXAMINER
DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/12/2013 PAPER
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.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte MARK D. YARVIS, SUMEET SANDHU, and
W. STEVEN CONNER
_____________

Appeal 2010-011587
Application 11/206,494
Technology Center 2400
______________

Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JASON V. MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-011587
Application 11/206,494

2

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final Rejection
of claims 2-7, 17-22, and 33-36.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse the Examiner’s rejection of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for providing an
integrated multi-hop routing and cooperative diversity system. Spec. ¶15. Claim
33 is representative of the invention and is reproduced below:
33. A method comprising:
identifying a target node at a communication node of a wireless
communication network, the target node being associated with a
multi-hop route from the communication node to a destination node;
selecting a neighbor node of the communication node to operate
as a cooperator node, the cooperator node and the communication
node operating cooperatively to communicate with the target node,
identifying a first route from the communication node to the
target node, wherein the first route does not include any intermediate
node between the communication node and the target node;
identifying a second route from the communication node to the
target node via the cooperator node, the second route including a first
link between the communication node and the cooperator node and a
second link between the cooperator node and the target node, wherein
the second link does not include any intermediate node between the
cooperator node and the target node; and
transmitting a data packet from the communication node to the
cooperator node over the first link of the second route and from the
communication node directly to the target node over the first route;
and
controlling a timing of the transmission of the data packet from
the communication node directly to the target node over the first route
such that the transmitting of the data packet from the communication
node directly to the target node over the first route occurs
substantially simultaneously with a transmitting of the data packet

1 Claims 1, 8-16, and 23-32 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2010-011587
Application 11/206,494

3

from the cooperator node directly to the target node over the second
link of the second route.

REFERENCES

Billhartz US 2004/0022224 A1 Feb. 5, 2004

Larsson US 2005/0014464 A1 Jan. 20, 2005

Pasanen US 7,386,036 B2 Jun. 10, 2008
(filed Dec. 31, 2003)

REJECTION AT ISSUE
Claims 2-7, 17-22, and 33-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Billhartz, Larsson, and Pasanen. Ans. 5-22.

ISSUE2
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Billhartz, Larsson,
and Pasanen teaches or suggests
controlling a timing of the transmitting of the data packet from the
communication node directly to the target node over the first route
such that the transmitting of the data packet from the communication
node directly to the target node over the first route occurs
substantially simultaneously with a transmitting of the data packet
from the cooperator node directly to the target node over the second
link of the second route,

2 Appellants made additional arguments with respect to claims 7 and 36. App. Br.
13-14. We will not address the additional arguments as this issue is dispositive of
the Appeal.
Appeal 2010-011587
Application 11/206,494

4

as recited in independent claim 33 and similarly recited in independent claim 17?
ANALYSIS
Independent claim 33 requires transmitting the same data packet over a first
route to a target node and over a second link of a second route, where the
transmissions of the data packet occur substantially simultaneously with each
other. Independent claim 17 contains a similar limitation. Claims 2-7 and 34-36
are dependent upon claim 33; and claims 18-22 are dependent upon claim 17. The
Examiner finds that Larsson describes transmitting data “essentially
simultaneously” over a plurality of paths characterized by two hops via relay
station 215. Ans. 24-25 (citing Larsson ¶36). The Examiner also finds that
Pasanen describes transmitting multiple simultaneous data streams over a plurality
of paths. Ans. 25 (citing Pasanen 4:27-34 and 7:36-40). The Examiner then finds
that the combination of Larsson and Pasanen teaches transmitting simultaneous
data streams on the first route and the second route, and further that the
transmission on the second link of the second route is transmitted “essentially
simultaneously” to the transmission on the first route. Ans. 25.
Appellants argue that the Examiner’s findings are in error because 1)
Larsson does not describe transmitting a data packet from TX 210′ to RX 220′ (i.e.,
a first route) and from RS1 215 to RX 220′ (i.e., a second link of a second route) at
any particular controlled time, let alone “substantially simultaneously” with each
other, App. Br. 9-10 (citing Larsson ¶36 and Fig. 8); and 2) Pasanen does not
describe sending the same packet simultaneously on a first route and a second link
of a second route since Pasanen only broadly describes being able to send multiple
data packets simultaneously over many paths, App. Br. 12 (citing Pasanen
abstract). See also App. Br. 8-13; Reply Br. 4-5.
Appeal 2010-011587
Application 11/206,494

5

We agree with Appellants that the combination of Billhartz, Larsson, and
Pasanen does not teach that which is claimed. The Examiner has failed to show
any teaching of controlling the transmission of the data packet on the first route
with the transmission of the data packet on a second link of a second route, as
required by the claim. While Larsson transmits signals on multiple routes and
“essentially simultaneously” from a first location and Pasanen describes sending
multiple data streams simultaneously, the Examiner has failed to show where any
of the references teach controlling the timing of a first route data packet
transmission with the data packet transmission over a second link of a second
route.
Therefore, for the reasons stated supra, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2-7, 17-22, and 33-36.

CONCLUSION

The Examiner erred in finding that the combination of Billhartz, Larsson,
and Pasanen teaches or suggests
controlling a timing of the transmitting of the data packet from the
communication node directly to the target node over the first route
such that the transmitting of the data packet from the communication
node directly to the target node over the first route occurs
substantially simultaneously with a transmitting of the data packet
from the cooperator node directly to the target node over the second
link of the second route,

as recited in independent claim 33 and similarly recited in independent claim 17.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-7, 17-22, and 33-36 is reversed.
Appeal 2010-011587
Application 11/206,494

6

REVERSED

ke