Shuigen Yang et al.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Nov 12, 2019

14653499 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Nov. 12, 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.
14/653,499 06/18/2015 Shuigen YANG 29250H-000060-US-NP 3756
30594 7590 11/12/2019
HARNESS, DICKEY & PIERCE, P.L.C.
P.O. BOX 8910
RESTON, VA 20195
EXAMINER
ASEFA, DEBEBE A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/12/2019 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):
Nokia.IPR@nokia.com
dcmailroom@hdp.com
jhill@hdp.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SHUIGEN YANG, GANG LIU, FANXIANG BIN, and HAIBO
WEN
Appeal 2019-000668
Application 14/653,499
Technology Center 2400
BEFORE ADAM J. PYONIN, KARA L. SZPONDOWSKI, and
MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges.
PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s rejection. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We reverse.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “Alcatel
Lucent, the assignee of record, [which] has been acquired by Nokia.”
Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2019-000668
Application 14/653,499

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
The Application is directed to “a method of managing a Zigbee
network in the Internet of Things” by “providing network information of
[the] Zigbee network.” Spec. 1:6, 2:7–8. Claims 1–18 are pending; claims
1, 6, and 11 are independent. See Response to Notification of Non-
Compliant Appeal Brief, filed May 29, 2018. Claim 1 is reproduced below
for reference (emphasis added):
1. A method of reporting network information of a
ZigBee network in a ZigBee coordination node of an Internet of
Things, wherein the ZigBee coordination node is connected to a
plurality of ZigBee nodes forming the ZigBee network, and the
Internet of Things includes an auto-configuration server in an IP
network, the ZigBee coordination node being connected to the
auto-configuration server via a gateway, the method comprising:
a. sending a first signaling based on a ZigBee device object
to the gateway, the first signaling including network description
information and neighbor list information of each ZigBee node
in the ZigBee network.
References and Rejections
Claims 1, 3, 5, and 16 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)
as anticipated by Cox (US 2012/0029717 A1; Feb. 2, 2012). Final Act. 3.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious in view of Cox and daCosta (US 9,172,738 B1; Oct. 27, 2015).
Final Act. 7.
Claims 7, 9, 10, and 12–14 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Cox, daCosta, and Lee (WO 2010/098601
A2; Sept. 2, 2010). Final Act. 9.
Appeal 2019-000668
Application 14/653,499

3
Claims 6, 8, 11, 15, 17, and 18 are rejected under pre–AIA 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as obvious in view of Cox and Lee. Final Act. 14.

OPINION
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
arguments. Arguments Appellant could have made but chose not to make
are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv).
The Examiner finds Cox discloses the claim 1 limitations relating to
the first signaling:
as disclosed by the primary[2] reference, in paragraph[0086], in
service discovery of a ZigBee network is that each device
describe[]s its device oriented function to the gateway and the
gateway will have device oriented information each node it is
managing because each node report its description. Also as
disclosed in paragraph [0074], during the exchange the ZigBee
cluster or device oriented function contains identification, and
alarms among other information.
Ans. 4–5.
Appellant argues “Cox does not disclose ‘sending . . . the first
signaling including network description information and neighbor list
information . . . ,’ as required by claim 1.” Appeal Br. 12. Particularly,
Appellant contends that Cox’s disclosure of a “cluster list” used in service
discovery is not tantamount to the disputed limitation, because “[t]he
language of claim 1 makes it clear that [the first signaling’s] ‘the network
description information’ is distinct from ‘the neighbor list information’” (Id.

2 We note Cox is the sole reference relied upon in the anticipation rejection
of claim 1. See Final Act. 3
Appeal 2019-000668
Application 14/653,499

4
at 11), whereas “Cox does not disclose including network information along
with the cluster list or in the cluster list” (Id. at 10).
We are persuaded the Examiner errs. In order to be anticipatory, a
reference must “describe the claimed invention with sufficient precision and
detail to establish that the subject matter existed in the prior art.” Verve,
LLC v. Crane Cams, Inc., 311 F.3d 1116, 1120 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Further, “it
is not enough that the prior art reference discloses part of the claimed
invention, which an ordinary artisan might supplement to make the whole, or
that it includes multiple, distinct teachings that the artisan might somehow
combine to achieve the claimed invention.” Net MoneyIn, Inc. v. VeriSign,
Inc., 545 F.3d 1359, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2008). We find the Examiner has not
shown Cox provides sufficient detail, without supplementation, to disclose
each limitation of claim 1.
The Examiner relies both on Cox’s mention of a “service discovery”
and Cox’s mention of “identification . . . among other information” for
disclosing the information contained in the recited first signaling; however,
the Examiner has provided no factual basis to show Cox discloses both sets
of information will be included in the same signaling. Ans. 5; Cox ¶¶ 74,
86. Rather, we note the discovery and identification appear to each depend
on separate signaling procedures in Cox. See Cox Fig. 5 (step 202
(regarding load control messages) and step 224 (regarding enabling device
clusters)), ¶¶ 65, 74, 86. We find Cox’s two separate signaling procedures—
each containing different information—are distinct teachings that do not
anticipate the “first signaling” of claim 1.
Moreover, Cox fails to provide sufficient detail regarding what
information is communicated during signaling. For example, Cox’s bare
Appeal 2019-000668
Application 14/653,499

5
disclosure of “messages for Zigbee clusters relating to identification” does
not contain any precise detail of what information is sent. Cox ¶ 74.
Similarly, Cox provides no further details regarding the process by which
“each device describes its available cluster” during service discovery. See
Cox ¶ 86. Even if this cluster description is tantamount to one of the
included information recitations (“neighbor list” or “network description”),
the Examiner fails to explain how the cluster description also discloses the
other included information recitation. Mapping Cox’s cluster description to
both limitations impermissibly reads one of the limitations out of the claim.
“The Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) must consider all claim limitations
when determining patentability of an invention over the prior art.” In re
Lowry, 32 F.3d 1579, 1582 (Fed. Cir. 1994); see also Innova/Pure Water,
Inc. v. Safari Water Filtration Sys., Inc., 381 F.3d 1111, 1119 (Fed. Cir.
2004) (“when an applicant uses different terms in a claim it is permissible to
infer that [they] intended [their] choice of different terms to reflect a
differentiation in the meaning of those terms”).
Thus, we agree with Appellant that Cox does not disclose “sending a
first signaling based on a ZigBee device object to the gateway, the first
signaling including network description information and neighbor list
information,” as recited in claim 1. The Examiner relies on Cox for the
similar limitations recited by independent claims 6 and 11. See Final Act.
14, 17. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of the
independent claims, or the rejections of the dependent claims thereon.
Appeal 2019-000668
Application 14/653,499

6
CONCLUSION
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Basis/Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 3, 5, 16 102(a) Cox 1, 3, 5, 16
2, 4 103(a) Cox, daCosta 2, 4
7, 9, 10, 12–
14
103(a) Cox, daCosta, Lee 7, 9, 10, 12–
14
6, 8, 11, 15,
17, 18
103(a) Cox, Lee 6, 8, 11, 15,
17, 18
Overall
Outcome
1–18

REVERSED