Joel W. Branch et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 3, 2019

14825649 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 3, 2019)

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.
14/825,649 08/13/2015 Joel W. BRANCH YOR920150330US1 1076
48150 7590 09/03/2019
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
EXAMINER
HUERTA, ALEXANDER Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2425
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/03/2019 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 JOEL W. BRANCH, SHANG QING GUO,
JONATHAN LENCHNER, and MAHARAJ MUKHERJEE1
________________

Appeal 2018-003192
Application 14/825,649
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and HUNG H. BUI,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1–3, 7–13, 15–17, and 19–24. Claims 4–6, 14, and 18
are canceled. Appeal Br. 2, 27. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 Appellant is the applicant and real party in interest, International Business
Machines Corporation. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2018-003192
Application 14/825,649

2

Summary of the disclosure
The Specification discloses the use of sensors at a first location that
form an ad hoc network through which they communicate to an at-home
user at a second location to “provide data sufficient for the at-home user to
be immersed in an experience at the first location.” Abstract.
Illustrative claim (key limitations emphasized with bold italics)
1. A method comprising:
forming a wireless ad hoc network with a plurality of sensors at a first
location, said ad hoc network comprising a localized, decentralized
network wherein each participating sensor has an equal status on said
network for performing network functions and is free to associate with
any other ad hoc network device in a link range of a vicinity of said
first location;
transmitting data from said plurality of sensors via said ad hoc
network, for consumption by an at-home user located at a second
location being any location different from said first location, using an
at-home user device, each said sensor indicating a location and a
directivity of sensing in said vicinity of said first location,
said plurality of sensors thereby providing data sufficient for said at-
home user to be immersed in an experience that approximates that of
said first location;
receiving said data from said plurality of sensors at said at-home user
device;
preparing said received data in accordance with a selected perspective
of said at-home user relative to said first location; and
presenting said prepared data to said at-home user,
wherein said wireless ad hoc network is established and maintained
by a transceiver on an on-the-go user device that transmits a pulse
such that any sensor in said link range capable of recognizing said
transmitted pulse is invited to join said wireless ad hoc network of
sensors,
Appeal 2018-003192
Application 14/825,649

3

wherein said on-the-go user device comprises a processor-based
device carried by or associated with an on-the-go user who is located
at said first location, and
wherein said preparing renders said received data to provide said at-
home user at the second location different from said first location to
recreate the experience of the on-the-go user at said first location from
the at-home user’s selected perspective, using video and/or audio
devices at the at-home user’s second location.
Examiner’s Rejections and References
The Examiner rejects claims2 1–3, 7, 9, 10, 12, 13, 15–17, 19, 20, and
23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Demirli et al. (US
2016/0027209 A1; published Jan. 28, 2016) (“Demirli”), Davison et al. (US
2012/0133638 A1; published May 31, 2012) (“Davison”), and Belimpasakis
et al. (US 2011/0238751 A1; published Sept. 29, 2011) (“Belimpasakis”).
Final Act. 4–17; Adv. Act. 2–6 (June 21, 2017) (all references to “Adv.
Act.” herein are to this advisory action).
The Examiner rejects claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Demirli, Davison, Belimpasakis, Lewis et al. (US 2010/
0162297 A1; published June 24, 2010) (“Lewis”), and Koperda et al. (US
6,230,203 B1; issued May 8, 2001) (“Koperda”). Final Act. 17–19.
The Examiner rejects claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Demirli, Davison, Belimpasakis, and Curry (US 2010/
0026809 A1; published Feb. 4, 2010). Final Act. 19.
The Examiner rejects claims 21 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Demirli, Davison, Belimpasakis, and O’Keefe et al.

2 After the Examiner’s rejection, Appellant amended claim 1 to incorporate
the recitations of now-canceled claim 6. Amend. after Final 2, 9 (May 30,
2017); Adv. Act. 9 (June 21, 2017).
Appeal 2018-003192
Application 14/825,649

4

(US 2013/0307997 A1; published Nov. 21, 2013) (“O’Keefe”). Final Act.
20–21.
The Examiner rejects claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Demirli, Davison, Belimpasakis, Hinkel (US 2016/
0100134 A1; published Apr. 7, 2016), and Oka et al. (US 4,965,844; issued
Oct. 23, 1990) (“Oka”). Final Act. 21–22.

ANALYSIS
Demirli teaches a server computer system that recruits live data feeds
from mobile devices to enable ad hoc creation of immerse environments.
Demirli ¶ 9. The Examiner finds that enabling this ad hoc creation of
immersive environments teaches or suggests:
forming a wireless ad hoc network with a plurality of sensors at
a first location, said ad hoc network comprising a localized,
decentralized network wherein each participating sensor has an
equal status on said network for performing network functions
and is free to associate with any other ad hoc network device in
a link range of a vicinity of said first location,
as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 4 (citing Demirli ¶¶ 7–10, Figs. 1, 2); see
also Ans. 3–4. The Examiner relies on Belimpasakis, which teaches
wireless nodes that form an ad hoc network, to teach or suggest “wherein
said wireless ad hoc network is established and maintained by a transceiver
on an on-the-go user device that transmits a pulse such that any sensor in
said link range capable of recognizing said transmitted pulse is invited to
join said wireless ad hoc network of sensors.” Final Act. 6 (citing
Belimpasakis ¶¶ 25–27, 48, 50, 93, Figs. 1A–B, 6); see also Ans. 5.
Appellant contends the Examiner erred because “[m]erely using
mobile devices as some of the sensors in a centralized network of sensors
Appeal 2018-003192
Application 14/825,649

5

103 transmitting data to a server 511,” as taught by Demirli, “would not
form an ad hoc network of sensors established and maintained by an on-the-
go user device.” Appeal Br. 10. Appellant argues Demirli’s ad hoc creation
of an immersive environment does not imply that “an ad hoc network of
sensors is formed, as established/maintained by an on-the-go user device.”
Id. at 11; see also Reply Br. 2–3. Appellant further contends that the mesh
network of Belimpasakis does not cure the alleged deficiency of Demirli
because it would not have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to
“add at least one of Belimpasakis’ devices in [its] ad hoc mesh network to
establish an ad hoc network of the sensors in Demirli.” Appeal Br. 11–12;
see also Reply Br. 5–6. We agree with Appellant that the Examiner erred.
Claim 1 recites that the claimed “wireless ad hoc network is
established and maintained by a transceiver on an on-the-go user device”
(bold italic emphasis added).
Such ad hoc network could be established, for example, by
transmitting a wireless peer-to-peer interconnection request
between an app on the on-the-go user’s device, to make contact
with any sensor in the vicinity of the on-the-go user’s device
which is configured to participate in an ad hoc network as an
input sensor and is within range of the ad hoc network request
from the on-the-go user’s device, e.g., within wireless link range.
Spec. ¶ 40. “[A]s the on-the-go user moves in and out of a particular
vicinity, local stationary sensors could join or leave the ongoing ad-hoc
network. This is accomplished by appropriately maintaining and modifying
the existing ad hoc network to add/delete sensors.” Id. ¶ 50. Thus, the ad
hoc network is created (i.e., established) by and exists for (i.e., is maintained
by) the on-the-go user device.
Appeal 2018-003192
Application 14/825,649

6

The cited teachings of Demirli relate to the created immersive
environments being ad hoc, not to a wireless network through which sensors
participate being ad hoc. See Demirli ¶ 9. Demirli broadly discloses use of
communication network 517, which “may include, for example, a local area
network, a wide area network, the internet, a mobile telecommunications
network, or a combination thereof.” Id. ¶ 94; see also id. ¶ 99. But Demirli
merely teaches that “server 511 may recruit live data feeds from the
computing devices of real participants at the venue” (id. ¶ 58) without
teaching that server 511 also establishes and maintains communication
network 517, which is depicted as existing apart from server 511 (id. Figs. 2,
9 (depicting communication network 517 as a cloud separate from server
511)). Therefore, as the Examiner acknowledges, Demirli fails to teach or
suggest a wireless ad hoc network that is established and maintained by a
transceiver on an on-the-go user device. Final Act. 6.
The Examiner does not show that the ad hoc mesh network of
Belimpasakis is established or maintained by a transceiver of an on-the-go
user device in the manner claimed. Rather, the Examiner relies on
Belimpasakis for teaching that “the set of wireless nodes 101a–101n that is
within communication range—i.e., within the bounds of the mesh network
109 of any particular wireless node 101—is transient and can change as the
wireless nodes 101a–101n move from location to location.” Belimpasakis
¶ 27; see also Belimpasakis Fig. 1A (depicting wireless nodes within ad hoc
mesh network 109).
The ad hoc mesh network of Belimpasakis allows “for sharing content
in a connectionless fashion,” meaning that a node is able to send and all
surrounding nodes are able “to receive information without the need to send
Appeal 2018-003192
Application 14/825,649

7

any prior control signaling.” Id. ¶ 28. Thus, in Belimpasakis, an on-the-go
user device does not establish an ad hoc network. Rather, devices within
proximity to each other (i.e., within the bounds of mesh network 109) form
the ad hoc network regardless of the presence of and without some form of
prompting by an on-the-go user device. Moreover, the ad hoc network in
Belimpasakis continues to exist (i.e., to be maintained) when an on-the-go
user device moves outside the bounds of mesh network 109. Therefore, the
Examiner’s findings do not show that Belimpasakis cures the noted
deficiency of Demirli.
The Examiner does not rely on Davison or the other cited references
to cure the noted deficiency of Demirli and Belimpasakis. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection of claim 1, or the
Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejections of claims 2, 3, 7–13, 15–17, and 19–
24, which contain the same or similar recitations.

DECISION
We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1–3, 7–13, 15–
17, and 19–24.
REVERSED