Ex Parte Zhang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Apr 15, 2016

12298595 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 15, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
12/298,595 10/27/2008 Daqing Zhang
138325 7590 04/19/2016
PHILIPS LIGHTING BY
P.O. BOX 3001
BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510
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.
2006P01144WOUS 9659
EXAMINER
LOPATA, ROBERT J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2471
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/19/2016 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):
kim.larocca@philips.com
jo.cangelosi@philips.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DAQING ZHANG, NINGJIANG CHEN, and
JIN WANG
Appeal2014-003887
Application 12/298,595 1
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KEVIN C. TROCK, and
JESSICA C. KAISER, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a final rejection of
claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
1 According to Appellants, the Real Party in Interest is Koninklijke Philips
Electronics N.V. (App. Br. 3.)
Appeal2014-003887
Application 12/298,595
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1 is exemplary and is reproduced below with disputed
limitations italicized:
1. A method for conserving energy expended by a
communications network including nodes having limited
supplies of energy said method comprising the steps of:
(a) acquiring energy information indicative of an energy
status of one of said nodes; and
(b) according to the energy information, conserving energy
expended by said node by adjusting at least one of
(i) a timeout before a transmission device repeats a
transmission of data to said node; and
(ii) a limit on a number of times that the data will be
retransmitted to said node.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park (US 7,356,014 B2; issued Apr. 8, 2008) and
Lu (US 2006/0233178 Al; published Oct. 19, 2006). (Final Act. 6-10.)
Claims 4, 8, and 11-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Lu, and Loe (US 7,957,347 Bl; issued June 7,
2011). (Id. at 10-18.)
INDEPENDENT CLAIMS 1, 5, 9, AND 10
Issues
Did the Examiner err by finding Lu teaches or suggests "according to
the energy information, conserving energy expended by said node by
adjusting at least one of: (i) a timeout before a transmission device repeats a
2
Appeal2014-003887
Application 12/298,595
transmission of data to said node; and (ii) a limit on a number of times that
the data will be retransmitted to said node," as recited in claim 1, and
similarly recited in claims 5, 9, 10, and 11?
Did the Examiner improperly combine Park and Lu?
Analysis
Appellants argue Lu does not teach or suggest "according to the
energy information, conserving energy expended by said node," as recited in
claim 1, and similarly recited in claims 5, 9, and 10. (App. Br. 19; Reply Br.
19.) Specifically, Appellants argue Lu provides "power-efficient
transmission regardless of and without reference to the available energy
status" of network devices. (App. Br. 19 (citing Lu i-f 21) (emphasis
omitted); Reply Br. 19 (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Park
teaches conserving a network device's energy by adjusting data
transmissions based on the energy level of the network device. (Ans. 22-23
(citing Park 4:23--42); Final Act 6.) Appellants' argument directed towards
Lu (App. Br. 19; Reply Br. 19) does not address the Examiner's findings
regarding Park (Ans. 22-23; Final Act 6). Accordingly, we are not
persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Park and Lu
teaches or suggests "according to the energy information, conserving energy
expended by said node," as recited in claim 1, and similarly recited in claims
5, 9, and 10.
Additionally, Appellants argue the Examiner improperly combined
Park and Lu. Specifically, Appellants argue Lu "adjust[s] both the
transmission power and the number of retransmissions," but adjusting
3
Appeal2014-003887
Application 12/298,595
transmission power in Park could "increase the power drain," which would
"change the principle of operation of [Park]" and "render [Park]
unsatisfactory for its intended purpose." (App. Br. 19-21 (emphasis
omitted); Reply Br. 19-21 (emphasis omitted), 25-26.)
We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument because the test for
obviousness is not whether the features of one reference (i.e., Lu) may be
bodily incorporated into the structure of another (i.e., Park). Rather, the test
is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA
1981) (citations omitted). Contrary to Appellants' argument that Lu does
not teach limiting the number of retransmissions to conserve energy (Reply
Br. 25-26), the Examiner finds, and we agree, Lu teaches a technique of
"reducing transmission power consumption ... achieved by choosing the
maximum number of retransmission times" (Ans. 23 (citing Lu i-f 21 ); Final
Act. 6). Because Lu teaches an energy conservation technique and Park is
concerned with energy conservation, we agree with the Examiner's
conclusion that one of ordinary skill in the art would have used Lu's energy
conservation technique to limit the maximum number of retransmissions in
Park. (Ans. 23-25; Final Act. 7.)
Appellants further argue that "motivation to combine the teachings of
[Park] and [Lu] would not be enough. These teachings would also need to
suggest [the] combination in a way that would make applicants' invention
obvious." (Reply Br. 28.) That argument relies on a teaching, suggestion,
or motivation standard, which is not required under KSR Int 'l Co. v. Teleflex
Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). In addition, Appellants' argument does not
persuasively address the Examiner's rationale for the combination, i.e.,
4
Appeal2014-003887
Application 12/298,595
providing "a more efficient device" that is "cheaper to operate, and able to
operate for longer periods of time." (Final Act. 7.)
Appellants further argue Park and Lu "are not aligned and differences
do exist in the principles of operation of these two patent documents."
(Reply Br. 28.) To the extent Appellants argue the references are non-
analogous art, we are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree,
both references are pertinent to the problem to be solved because they
conserve energy by adjusting data transmissions. (See Ans. 22-23.)
For the reasons discussed above, Appellants have not persuaded us of
error in the Examiner's decision to reject independent claims 1, 5, 9, and 10.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 2, 4, 6, 8, AND 12-14
Issue
Did the Examiner err by finding Lu teaches or suggests adjustment of
a "timeout," as recited in claims 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12-14?
Analysis
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites "said adjustment
decreases the timeout in response to an increase of the energy supply to said
node and increases the timeout in response to a decrease of said energy
supply." Appellants argue the combination of Park and Lu does not teach or
suggest the additional limitation recited in claim 2. (App. Br. 22-23; Reply
Br. 30-33.) Specifically, Appellants argue Lu's adjustment of a number of
retransmission times does not teach or suggest a retransmission timeout.
(App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 31.)
5
Appeal2014-003887
Application 12/298,595
We are persuaded by Appellants' argument. The Examiner finds Lu
teaches adjustment of a retransmission limit (i.e., the number of times data is
retransmitted). (Ans. 29 (citing Lu i-f 21 ); Final Act. 7-8.) The Examiner
concludes it would have been obvious to adjust the retransmission timeout
because using "timeout or retransmission times are anal[o]gous." (Ans. 30-
31; Final Act. 8.) However, a retransmission timeout is different than the
number of retransmission times because a retransmission timeout is directed
to the length of time before data is retransmitted while a retransmission limit
is directed to the quantity of retransmissions. (Spec. 5: 17-22.) Accordingly,
on this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's§ 103 rejection
of claim 2.
Claim 4 depends from claim 1; claims 6 and 8 depend from claim 5;
and claims 12-14 depend directly or indirectly from claim 11 (discussed
below). These dependent claims also recite similar limitations (i.e.,
adjusting a timeout) to claim 2. The Examiner similarly relies on Lu as
teaching those limitations. (Ans. 28-32, 44--46; Final Act. 7-8, 12-17.)
Thus, on this record, we are constrained to reverse the Examiner's§ 103
rejections of claims 4, 6, 8, and 12-14 for the same reasons as claim 2.
DEPENDENT CLAIMS 3 AND 7
Issue
Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Park and Lu
teaches or suggests the "adjustment increases the limit on the number of
times that data will be retransmitted to said node in response to an increase
of the energy supply to said node and decreases said limit in response to a
6
Appeal2014-003887
Application 12/298,595
decrease of said energy supply," as recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in
claim 7?
Analysis
Claim 3 depends from claim 1 and further recites "said adjustment
increases the limit on the number of times that data will be retransmitted to
said node in response to an increase of the energy supply to said node and
decreases said limit in response to a decrease of said energy supply." Claim
7 depends from claim 5 and recites a similar limitation as claim 3.
Appellants argue the combination of Park and Lu does not teach or suggest
the additional limitations recited in claims 3 and 7. (App. Br. 23; Reply Br.
34--35.) Specifically, similar to the arguments regarding claim 1, Appellants
argue Lu implements an energy conservation technique "regardless of and
without reference to the available energy status of nodes." (App. Br. 23
(emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 34--35 (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra regarding claim 1,
Appellants' argument directed towards Lu (App. Br. 23; Reply Br. 34--35)
does not address the Examiner's finding that Park teaches adjusting data
transmission based on energy level (Ans. 22-23 (citing Park 4:23--42), 34;
Final Act 6). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred by
finding the combination of Park and Lu teaches or suggests the "adjustment
increases the limit on the number of times that data will be retransmitted to
said node in response to an increase of the energy supply to said node and
decreases said limit in response to a decrease of said energy supply," as
recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in claim 7.
7
Appeal2014-003887
Application 12/298,595
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's decision
to reject claims 3 and 7.
INDEPENDENT CLAIM 11 AND DEPENDENT CLAIM 15
Issue
Did the Examiner err by finding Loe teaches or suggests "acquiring
bandwidth information indicative of an available bandwidth status of the
node" and "according to ... the bandwidth information, conserving the
energy expended by said node by adjusting at least one of: (i) a timeout
before a transmission device repeats a transmission of data to said node; and
(ii) a limit on a number of times that the data will be retransmitted to said
node," as recited in claim 11?
Analysis
Regarding independent claim 11, Appellants repeat their arguments
against Park and Lu (App. Br. 25), which we find unpersuasive, as discussed
supra in our analysis regarding claim 1.
Additionally, Appellants argue Loe does not teach or suggest
"acquiring bandwidth information indicative of an available bandwidth
status of the node," as recited in claim 11. (App. Br. 25-26; Reply Br. 36-
40.) Specifically, Appellants argue Loe "does not acquire bandwidth
information ... rather it allocates bandwidth." (App. Br. 26 (emphasis
omitted); Reply Br. 38 (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Loe
teaches "transmitting a bandwidth allocation message" to a network device.
(See Final Act. 11 (citing Loe 9:43--46); Ans. 38-39 (citing Loe 3:7-15).)
8
Appeal2014-003887
Application 12/298,595
By receiving the bandwidth allocation message the device acquires
bandwidth information indicating how much bandwidth the device has to
use. (Loe 9:43--46.) Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred
by finding Loe teaches or suggests "acquiring bandwidth information
indicative of an available bandwidth status of the node," as recited in claim
11.
Additionally, Appellants argue Loe does not teach or suggest
"according to ... the bandwidth information, conserving the energy
expended by said node by adjusting at least one of: (i) a timeout before a
transmission device repeats a transmission of data to said node; and (ii) a
limit on a number of times that the data will be retransmitted to said node"
retransmissions as recited in claim 11. (App. Br. 25-26; Reply Br. 37--40.)
Specifically, Appellants argue Loc's "allocated bandwidth ... is not used as
a basis for adjusting a timeout" or limiting the number of retransmissions.
(App. Br. 26 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 38 (emphasis omitted).)
We are not persuaded. As discussed supra, the Examiner finds Lu
teaches or suggests conserving energy by limiting the number of
retransmissions. (Ans. 42--43 (citing Lu i-f 21 ); Final Act. 11.) Because we
agree with the Examiner that Lu teaches conserving energy by limiting the
number of retransmissions, as discussed supra, Appellants' argument
regarding Loc's manner of conserving energy (App. Br. 25-26; Reply Br.
37--40) is unpersuasive. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the combination
of Park, Lu, and Loe fails to teach or suggest "according to ... the
bandwidth information, conserving the energy expended by said node by
adjusting at least one of: (i) a timeout before a transmission device repeats a
9
Appeal2014-003887
Application 12/298,595
transmission of data to said node; and (ii) a limit on a number of times that
the data will be retransmitted to said node," as recited in claim 11.
For the reasons discussed above, we sustain the Examiner's decision
to reject independent claim 11 and dependent claim 15, not argued
separately (see App. Br. 29).
DECISION
The Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, and 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park and Lu is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 4, 6, and 8 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Park and Lu is reversed.
The Examiner's rejection of claim 11 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Park, Lu, and Loe is affirmed.
The Examiner's rejection of claims 12-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Park, Lu, and Loe is reversed.
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-IN-PART
10