Ex Parte Banerjee et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 19, 2017

14020838 (P.T.A.B. May. 19, 2017)

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. 14/020,838 09/07/2013 Suman Banerjee BNRJS02 9092 7590 05/19/2017 Suman Banerjee 3412 Crestwood Drive Madison, WI 53705 EXAMINER MARCELO, MELVIN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/19/2017 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 SUMAN BANERJEE, SHRAVAN RAYANCHU, and ASHISH PATRO ____________ Appeal 2017-002338 Application 14/020,838 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JASON V. MORGAN, JON M. JURGOVAN, and AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2017-002338 Application 14/020,838 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of claims 21–40, which are all of the pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. THE INVENTION The application is directed to “observation of wireless interference between devices incorporating different technological systems.” (Spec. ¶ 6.) Claim 21, reproduced below, exemplifies the subject matter on appeal: 21. A method, comprising: generating spectral samples comprising signal levels and tim- ing information for observed signals within a frequency band; identifying a first set of pulses in the spectral samples associ- ated with at least one radio frequency device; identifying a second set of transmission frames associated with at least one radio communication device; determining overlap between the first and second sets; and quantifying interference generated by the at least one radio frequency device based on the overlap. THE REFERENCE AND THE REJECTIONS 1. Claims 21, 25–31, and 35–40 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Ponnuswamy (US 2012/0008514 A1; published January 12, 2012). (See Final Act. 3–8.) 2. Claims 22–24 and 32–34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ponnuswamy. (See Final Act. 9–11.) Appeal 2017-002338 Application 14/020,838 3 APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejections are in error for the following reasons: 1. Ponnuswamy does not disclose “determining overlap between the first and second sets” and “quantifying interference generated by the at least one radio frequency device based on the overlap,” as recited in claim 21. (See App. Br. 4–5.) 2. Ponnuswamy does not teach or suggest “quantifying the interference by comparing a first error metric for the at least one radio communication device during periods of overlap to a second error metric for the at least one radio communication device during periods of no overlap,” as recited in claims 22 and 32. (See App. Br. 6–7.) 3. Ponnuswamy does not teach or suggest “more detailed features regarding the quantifying of the interference” in claims 23, 24, 33, and 34, as it “is completely silent regarding comparing packet loss metrics or taking a ratio of the packet loss metrics during periods of overlap and periods of non- overlap.” (See App. Br. 7.) ANALYSIS Claims 21, 25–31, and 35–40 Claim 21 is directed to a system that: (a) generates spectral samples; (b) identifies in the samples a set of pulses associated with a radio frequency (“RF”) device and a set of transmission frames associated with a radio communication device; (c) determines overlap between the sets; and (d) quantifies interference generated by the RF device based on the overlap. Appeal 2017-002338 Application 14/020,838 4 Ponnuswamy describes a system for “monitoring wireless digital networks” by “combining data from multiple sensors in a wireless network.” (Ponnuswamy ¶ 3.) The reference explains that “[s]pectrum data from multiple sensors is combined and correlated to provide insight into network operation such as spectrum maps, detection-range maps, and for network diagnostics.” (Id. ¶ 12.) The “spectrum-map may be used to display any spectrum metrics, including but not limited to, channel quality, link quality, channel availability, interference level, frame error rate, non-Wi-Fi duty cycle, Wi-Fi duty cycle, aggregate channel usage, and channel usage or duty cycles for specific type of traffic or devices. (Id. ¶ 23.) Like Appellants’ claim 21, the reference describes collection of RF pulses and transmission frames from spectral samples and determining an overlap between the pulses and the frames, as “[e]ach piece of data calculated for every point on all the spectrum maps comes with a timestamp, where the timers are synchronized across multiple monitors” and “[t]he timestamp may be used to correlate spectrum events to wireless network events that may occur on multiple spectrum monitors.” (Id. ¶ 36.) Notwithstanding the similarities, Appellants argue claim 21 is not anticipated because Ponnuswamy does not “quantify interference” generated by the RF device “based on the overlap.” The Examiner responds that the argued limitation is met because [the] spectrum-map would be quantified interference data in that the interferer’s duty cycle (i.e. on/off cycle) would indicate the changes in the channel quality, link quality, interference level and frame error rate when the Wi-Fi duty cycle indicates that it is on and the interferer’s duty cycle indicates that it is on (i.e. overlap when both devices are on at the same time and the spectrum-map shows low channel quality, low link quality, Appeal 2017-002338 Application 14/020,838 5 high interference level and high frame error rate) and when the interferer’s duty cycle indicates that it is off (i.e. no overlap since the interferer device is off and the spectrum-map shows high channel quality, high link quality, low interference level and low frame error rate). (Ans. 2–3.) We agree with the Examiner. One of skill in the art would have understood that where the reference describes in paragraph 34 how “within a specific area with a high error rate or low link quality, other metrics such as interferer duty cycle may be used to isolate the source of network quality problems,” it refers to using the correlated data to determine the error rate when the interferer is on and when it is off, so as to determine if the interferer is the source of the problem. This constitutes “quantifying interference,” e.g., as high enough to establish the source of interference, “based on the overlap,” as broadly claimed. Appellants’ arguments that “[t]he spectrum map is a summary map displaying aggregated parameters” and “[t]he duty cycle is an aggregate metric indicating a ratio between on and off times, it is not a real-time display of when the device is actually on or off” (Reply Br. 3) are not persuasive because the claim is not limited to non-aggregated data or “real-time display.” For these reasons, the 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) rejection of claim 21 is sustained and, as Appellants do not offer separate arguments for claims 25– 31 and 35–40, the Section 102(e) rejection of those claims is also sustained. Claims 22–24 and 32–34 Claims 22 and 32 recite “quantifying the interference by comparing a first error metric for the . . . radio communication device during periods of overlap to a second error metric for the . . . radio communication device during periods of no overlap.” Appeal 2017-002338 Application 14/020,838 6 The Examiner finds “Ponnuswamy clearly teaches that the error metrics are correlated to the interferer’s duty cycle” and that it would have been obvious “to compare error metrics during periods of overlap and periods of non-overlap since Ponnuswamy provides the statistical data along with the interferer duty cycle (i.e. the on/off cycle which indicates the overlap and non-overlap).” (Ans. 3.) Appellants respond that “[m]erely providing the statistics necessary to perform a calculation does not actually teach performing a particular calculation” and that, in any event, “Ponnuswamy does not teach providing the necessary components of the calculation” because it only teaches displaying duty cycles which “only indicate a ratio of on/off times.” (Reply Br. 4.) We are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument. The claims do not require a “calculation” and, as explained above, paragraph 34 describes comparing the error rate (an “error metric”) when the interferer is on (i.e., overlapping) and when the interferer is off (i.e., not overlapping), where a high error rate when it is on indicates that the interferer is the source of the problem. We thus sustain the rejection of claims 22 and 32. Appellants also argue “[c]laims 23, 24, 33, and 34 include more detailed features regarding the quantifying of the interference” and, in particular, “Ponnuswamy is completely silent regarding comparing packet loss metrics or taking a ratio of the packet loss metrics during periods of overlap and periods of non-overlap.” (App. Br. 7.) We agree with the Examiner, however, that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to use a “packet loss metric” as the error metric for a “radio communication device,” which may be a Wi-Fi device (see Spec. ¶ 77) widely known to Appeal 2017-002338 Application 14/020,838 7 communicate using packets. We also agree that it would have been obvious to calculate the claimed ratio, which is simply another way to represent the difference between the error rates when the interferer is on and off. The rejections of claims 23, 24, 33, and 34 are, accordingly, also sustained. DECISION The rejections of claim 21–40 are affirmed. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED