Tyler Kratz

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Oct 28, 2021

2020005741 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 28, 2021)

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.
16/031,283 07/10/2018 Tyler Michael Kratz TYKRA.006D1 8215
20995 7590 10/28/2021
KNOBBE MARTENS OLSON & BEAR LLP
2040 MAIN STREET
FOURTEENTH FLOOR
IRVINE, CA 92614
EXAMINER
NGUYEN, HANH N
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2413
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/28/2021 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):
efiling@knobbe.com
jayna.cartee@knobbe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte TYLER MICHAEL KRATZ

Appeal 2020-005741
Application 16/031,283
Technology Center 2400
____________

Before JAMES R. HUGHES, JENNIFER L. MCKEOWN,
and NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.

BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 7–11, 13, and 14.1 Claims 1–6, 12, and 15–20 are
cancelled.2 We have jurisdiction over the pending rejected claims 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. Appellant identifies Tyler Michael Kratz as the real party
in interest. (Appeal Br. 3.)
2 The Final Office Action incorrectly also lists cancelled claim 12 as
rejected. (Appeal Br. 10.)
Appeal 2020-005741
Application 16/031,283

2

THE INVENTION
Appellant’s disclosed and claimed invention is directed to a wireless
communication system that includes an electrically powered window
mounted air conditioning unit with a small cell wireless communication
device. (Abstr.)
Independent claim 7 is representative:
7. A wireless communication system configured to increase
network capacity of a communications network, comprising:
a window mounted air condition unit; and
a small cell wireless communication device affixed to
said window mounted air conditioning unit, the small cell
wireless communication device configured to increase network
capacity of a communications network in order to allow
communications with multiple other devices and to receive
power through the window mounted air conditioning unit.
(Appeal Br. 11 (Claim App.))
REJECTIONS
The Examiner rejected claims 7–11, 13, and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Glickfield et al. (US 2014/0244001 A1, pub.
Aug. 28, 2014) and Steinberg (US 8,090,477 B1, iss. Jan. 3, 2012). (Final
Act. 5–8.)3

3 The Examiner rejected claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, but that claim is
cancelled. (Appeal Br. 10.)
Appeal 2020-005741
Application 16/031,283

3

ISSUE ON APPEAL
Appellant’s arguments present the following dispositive issue:4
Whether the Examiner erred in finding that the combination of
Glickfield and Steinberg taught or suggested the independent claim 7
limitation, “the small cell wireless communication device configured to
increase network capacity of a communications network.” (Appeal Br. 7–9.)
ANALYSIS
For the claim limitation at issue, the Examiner relies on the disclosure
in Glickfield of a WiFi transceiver included in an air conditioner, which is
configured or controlled by a supervisor device via wireless communication,
and which can communicate with other devices via a peer-to-peer
communication network. (Final Act. 3, 5–6; Ans. 7; Glickfield Figs. 1A,
1B, 2A, ¶¶ 25, 26, 42, 50, 67.)
Appellant argues that nothing in Glickfield suggests to use the WiFi
transceiver devices and supervisor devices to increase network capacity —
rather, those devices facilitate communication and control within an existing
network without increasing capacity. (Appeal Br. 8–9.)
We agree with Appellant. Nothing in Glickfield relates to increasing
network capacity. The devices disclosed in Glickfield communicate via a
wireless network of a given capacity, and there is no teaching or suggestion
that the devices are used to increase the capacity of the network. The
Examiner argues (Ans. 6) that the meaning of “increas[ing] network

4 Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the legal conclusions
and findings of the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief, filed Mar. 12,
2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Reply Brief, filed Aug. 5, 2020 (“Reply Br.”); the
Final Office Action, mailed Nov. 4, 2019 (“Final Act.”); and the Examiner’s
Answer, mailed June 9, 2020 (“Ans.”) for the respective details.
Appeal 2020-005741
Application 16/031,283

4

capacity” is not limited to the description in the specification, which states
that “[t]here are various methods of increasing capacity: introduction of
more spectrum, increasing the information rate by improving the efficiency
of the physical layer protocol/channel access protocol and cell splitting.”
(Spec. ¶ 3.) The Examiner relies on the fact that the smart controller of
Glickfield “can obtain control information/instructions from a remote server
to add new devices.” (Ans. 7 (citing Glickfield Fig. 5, ¶ 67).)
We agree that the meaning of “increas[ing] network capacity” is not
limited to the examples in the specification. However, the Examiner’s
reliance on the fact that the smart controller has the capability of adding
devices to the network is not a reasonable additional example of increasing
network capacity. As Appellant points out, this capability uses up network
resources, as opposed to increasing capacity. (Reply Br. 1–2.)
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 7 as obvious over Glickfield and Steinberg. We also do
not sustain the rejections of claims 8–11, 13, and 14, which depend form
claim 7.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7–11, 13,
14
103 Glickfield, Steinberg 7–11, 13,
14

REVERSED