Ex Parte Ben Slimane et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 22, 2016

12937034 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/937,034 10/08/2010 Slimane Ben Slimane 24112 7590 02/22/2016 COATS & BENNETT, PLLC 1400 Crescent Green, Suite 300 Cary, NC 27518 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. 4015-7120 I P25592-US1 8715 EXAMINER SHIH, ALBERT K ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2411 MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE 02/22/2016 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 SLIMANE BEN SLIMANE, JAW AD MANS SOUR, and AFIF OSSEIRAN Appeal2014-000371 Application 12/937,034 Technology Center 2400 Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARLA M. KRIVAK, and JEFFREY A. STEPHENS, Administrative Patent Judges. NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Final Rejection of claims 27-35, 37--44, 46--47, and 50-53. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm and enter a new rejection. 1 The Examiner has identified claims 36 and 45 as containing allowable subject matter. Appeal2014-000371 Application 12/937,034 INVENTION The invention is directed to network communication between nodes in a network by selecting a group of source nodes, coding group data, and sending the resulting coded data to a destination node. See Title and page 1 of Appellants' Specification. Claim 27 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below. 27. A data communication method in a communication system comprising N multiple source nodes each having data destined for a destination node, said method comprising: defining a node number M where 2 :S M < N; selecting a group of M multiple source nodes among said N multiple source nodes; network coding, at a relay node of said communication system, the data from said group of M multiple source nodes to form network coded data; and transmitting said network coded data from said relay node to said destination node. REJECTIONS AT ISSUE The Examiner has rejected claims 27-28, 37, 46--47, and 50-52 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 102(e) as anticipated by Liu (US 2009/0201899 Al, published Aug. 13, 2009). Final Action 5-10.2 The Examiner has rejected claims 29-34 and 38-43 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Liu and Peng ("SNCC: A Selective Network-Coded Cooperation Scheme in Wireless Networks," IEEE (2007)). Final Action 11-19. 2 Throughout this opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed July 1, 2013, the Reply Brief filed Sept. 25, 2013, the Final Action mailed Jan. 22, 2013, and the Examiner's Answer mailed July 30, 2013. 2 Appeal2014-000371 Application 12/937,034 The Examiner has rejected claims 35, 44, and 53 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Liu and Lee (US 2009/0180410 Al, published July 16, 2009). Final Action 19-21. ISSUE Appellants present several arguments on pages 5-12 of the Appeal Brief and pages 4-6 of the Reply Brief, directed to the Examiner's rejection of independent claims 27, 37, 46, and 50. The issue raised by these arguments is: Did the Examiner err in finding Liu teaches network coding data from M source nodes to form network coded data at a relay node, for transmission to one destination node, as required by independent claim 27? With respect to claims 28-35, 37--44, 46--47, and 50-53, Appellants present the same arguments providing us with the same issue as claim 27. ANALYSIS We have reviewed Appellants' arguments in the Briefs, the Examiner's rejection, and the Examiner's response to Appellants' arguments. Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of Examiner error. With respect to independent claim 27, Appellants assert that Liu does not teach network coding data from multiple source nodes to form network coded data. App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 5. According to Appellants, Liu's chaotic routing routes data from a single source node to a destination, and therefore Liu does not code data from multiple source nodes. App. Br. 6-7 (citing Liu, Fig. 3). The Examiner disagrees that Liu' s chaotic routing is for only a single source node to a single destination node, and finds that Liu codes data from 3 Appeal2014-000371 Application 12/937,034 multiple source nodes. Ans. 30-31 (citing Liu, iJ 44, Fig. 3 ); Final Action 6. We concur with the Examiner's finding because, as seen in Liu's Figure 3 reproduced below, data from nodes 1 and 23 along with data destined for destination node D (i.e., M = 2) is aggregated at a relay node 5 "via network coding." See Liu iJ 40. We note this rationale is different than that of the Examiner as the Examiner did not identify nodes 1 and 2 as source nodes. Figure 3 of Liu is reproduced below: 1 FIGURE 3 Figure 3 is a diagram of a chaotic routing mechanism for data in a wireless network. Liu iii! 37, 39. Four nodes in Liu's Figure 3 have been annotated with numbers 1, 2, 3, and 5. 3 We consider these to be source nodes as the claims merely recite a source node as a node having data destined for a destination node. 4 Appeal2014-000371 Application 12/937,034 Appellants further contend Liu does not select M multiple source nodes fewer than all N source nodes for network coding, as required by claim 27. App. Br. 7-8; Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument for the reasons discussed supra with respect to Liu's Figure 3, in which fewer nodes (nodes 1 and 2) than all source nodes (including nodes 1, 2, and 3) are selected for network coding at relay node 5. Appellants additionally argue Liu does not teach multiple source nodes each having data destined for a single destination node, as required by claim 27. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 5. We are not persuaded by Appellants' argument. As discussed supra with respect to Liu's Figure 3, data from multiple source nodes 1 and 2 is destined for a single destination node D. We, therefore, concur with the Examiner that Liu teaches network coding data from M (where 2 :SM< N) selected source nodes to form network coded data for one destination node, as required by claim 27. Ans. 30-31, 39. As such we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 27, and independent claim 46, for which Appellants present the same arguments. App. Br. 10. Regarding independent claim 50, Appellants contend Liu does not teach a destination node receiving network coded data of M source nodes. App. Br. 11. As discussed supra with respect to claim 27, we are not persuaded that Liu does not teach this feature. Accordingly, we also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 50. Appellants contend the rejection of independent claim 37 is in error for the same reasons as claim 27. App. Br. 10. Appellants further argue Liu does not teach transmission of M source nodes' identifiers as required in claim 37. App. Br. 10. The Examiner relies upon the control packets in 5 Appeal2014-000371 Application 12/937,034 Liu's Figure 4, to teach transmission of nodes' identifiers. Ans. 39; Final Action 7. Appellants' arguments do not directly address these findings by the Examiner and as such have not persuaded us of error. Moreover, we agree Liu's control packet information includes an identifier that is "the node's unique ID." See Liu ,-i 88. Accordingly, Appellants' arguments have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner's rejection of claim 37. As Appellants have presented no additional arguments with respect to dependent claims 28-35, 38--44, 47, and 51-53, we similarly sustain the Examiner's rejection of these claims. DECISION The decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 27-35, 37--44, 46--47 and 50-53 is affirmed. However, as our rationale differs from the Examiner, we designate this rejection as a new ground of rejection. This Decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b). This section provides that "[a] new ground of rejection ... shall not be considered final for judicial review." 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b) also provides that the Appellants, WITHIN TWO MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE DECISION, must exercise one of the following two options with respect to the new ground of rejection to avoid termination of the appeal as to the rejected claims: ( 1) Reopen prosecution. Submit an appropriate amendment of the claims so rejected or new evidence relating to the claims so rejected, or both, and have the matter reconsidered by the examiner, in which event the proceeding will be remanded to the examiner. ... 6 Appeal2014-000371 Application 12/937,034 (2) Request rehearing. Request that the proceeding be reheard under Â§ 41.52 by the Board upon the same record .... No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 1.13 6( a)( 1 ). AFFIRMED 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(b) 7