Ex Parte Choudhury et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 23, 2016

12717134 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 23, 2016)

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.
1465.737BS 2151
EXAMINER
AGA, SORI A
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2476
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/717,134 03/04/2010
86636 7590 12/23/2016
BRUNDIDGE & STANGER, P.C.
2318 MILL ROAD, SUITE 1020
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
Sankhyan CHOUDHURY
12/23/2016 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 SANKHYAN CHOUDHURY, RAKESH KUMAR MISHRA,
NABENDU CHAKI
Appeal 2016-0019821
Application 12/717,134
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, JOHN P. PINKERTON, and
GARTH D. BAER, Administrative Patent Judges.
BAER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
1 Appellants identify University of Calcutta as the real party in interest.
Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2016-001982
Application 12/717,134
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is a decision on appeal, under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), from the
Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1, 3—13, 15, and 17—25, which are all
the pending claims. Appeal Br. 5. Claims 2, 14, 16, and 26 have been
cancelled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
BACKGROUND
A. The Invention
Appellants’ invention is directed to “[a] . . . routing protocol that
routes frames from a sending node to a receiving node based upon service
solicitation and availability.” Abstract. Claim 1 is representative and
reproduced below, with emphasis added to the disputed elements:
1. A method for routing information in a network
comprising:
generating a first frame with an integrated service code
that includes a node identifier and a service identification
number, the service identification number including a service
extended by a participating node ',
transmitting the first frame from a sending node to a
listening node;
determining whether the listening node, based on the
integrated service code, includes one of the participating node
or a non-participating node;
in response to a determination that the listening node
includes the participating node, transmitting data from the
sending node to the participating node; and
in response to a determination that the listening node
includes the non-participating node, initiating a sleep mode on
the non-participating node for a calculated time interval
2
Appeal 2016-001982
Application 12/717,134
corresponding to a completion time of the data transmission
from the sending node to the participating node.
Appeal Br. 19. (Claims App.).
B. The Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3—6, 8—13, 15, 17—19, and 21—25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Wentink
(US2007/0115882 Al; May 24, 2007), in view of Gong
(US 2011/0090844 Al; Apr. 21,2011). Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner rejects claims 7 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Wentink, in view of Gong, and further in view of Ryu
(US 2009/0046611 Al; Feb. 19, 2009). Id.
ANALYSIS
Appellants argue the combination of Wentink and Gong does not
teach or suggest “determining whether the listening node, based on the
integrated service code [that includes a node identifier and a service
identification number, the service identification number including a service
extended by a participating node], includes one of the participating node or a
non-participating node,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly
recited in independent claims 9, 15, and 22. See Appeal Br. 11—14; see also
Reply Br. 2—5. More specifically, Appellants argue Wentink discloses three
different communication mechanisms between devices of symmetric
transmit opportunity truncation (STT) systems, and none of the
communication mechanisms are based on an integrated service code. See
Appeal Br. 13—14 (citing Wentink || 44-46). Appellants further argue
Gong discloses three conditions that cause a receiver to power down, and
3
Appeal 2016-001982
Application 12/717,134
none of the conditions are based on an integrated service code. See Appeal
Br. 14 (citing Gong || 58—60). Appellants also argue that both Wentink and
Gong merely disclose a Basic Service Set Identifier (BSSID), which is
defined as one Access Point (AP) and associated clients, and the BSSID
does not include a node identifier and a service identification number, where
the service identification number includes a service extended by a
participating node. See Reply Br. 3—5.
We do not find these arguments persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that both Wentink and Gong disclose a frame that includes a
receiver address (RA) field and a BSSID field. See Final Act. 3 (citing
Wentink 111); see also Gong 140. The RA teaches the claimed “node
identifier” as the RA identifies a receiving node. Further, the BSSID teaches
the claimed “service identification number including a service extended by a
participating node” as the BSSID identifies a basic service set offered by an
AP and extended by the receiving node.2 We also agree with the Examiner
that Gong teaches a receiver powering down (and thus, aborting further
processing of a packet) when the BSSID of a received frame does not
indicate a basic service set that includes, and/or is associated with, the
receiver. See Ans. 18 (citing Gong | 59). Additionally, Gong also teaches
the receiver powering down when the RA of the received frame does not
match a media access control (MAC) address of the receiver. See Gong
2 Appellants’ argument that a BSSID does not teach or suggest a “service
extended by a participating node” because the BSSID is defined as an AP
and associated clients (see Reply Br. 3^4) is not persuasive because the AP
includes a set of basic services offered by the AP and extended by the
receiving nodes.
4
Appeal 2016-001982
Application 12/717,134
| 58. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that the combination of Wentink
and Gong teaches or suggests the aforementioned claim element.
Appellants also argue the combination of Wentink and Gong does not
teach or suggest “transmitting the first frame from a sending node to a
listening node,” “determining whether the listening node. . . includes one of
the participating node or a non-participating node,” and “in response to a
determination that the listening node includes the participating node,
transmitting data from the sending node to the participating node,” as recited
in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 9, 15,
and 22. See Appeal Br. 14—16. More specifically, Appellants argue
Wentink discloses a three-node communication system that transmits data
from a sending node (i.e., station 401-1) to a node (i.e., station 401-3) other
than a participating node (i.e., station 401-2). See Appeal Br. 15 (citing
Wentink || 58, 59, 147). Appellants further argue Gong teaches sending
both a leading portion and a data portion of a packet to each device
regardless of whether the packet is intended to be received by a receiver.
See Appeal Br. 15—16 (citing Gong || 27, 42).
We do not find these arguments persuasive. We agree with the
Examiner that Wentink discloses an AP (i.e., a “sending node”) sending a
Request-to-Send (RTS) frame to a client device (i.e., “a listening node”), and
further discloses the AP sending data to the client device when it receives a
Clear-to-Send (CTS) packet from the client device. See Final Act. 3 (citing
Wentink H 44-47). We further agree with the Examiner that Gong
discloses a receiver determining whether a received packet is intended to be
received by the receiver (i.e., “determining whether the listening node . . .
includes one of the participating node or a non-participating node”). See
5
Appeal 2016-001982
Application 12/717,134
Final Act. 4 (citing Gong || 58—60). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
the combination of Wentink and Gong teaches or suggests the
aforementioned claim elements. Appellants’ argument regarding Wentink
does not address the portions cited by the Examiner, and thus, is not
persuasive.3 Appellants’ argument regarding Gong addresses Gong rather
than the combination of Wentink and Gong, as the argument fails to address
the Examiner’s finding that Wentink teaches a sending node sending a first
frame to a listening node and sending data to the listening node when it
receives a second packet from the listening node. See Final Act. 3. It is well
established that one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references
individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Thus, this argument is not persuasive either.
Appellants further argue the combination of Wentink and Gong does
not teach or suggest “in response to a determination that the listening node
includes the non-participating node, initiating a sleep mode on the non-
3 In fact, Appellants’ argument regarding Wentink does not appear to
address Wentink at all. For example, Appellants argue that Wentink
discloses a three-node communication system (e.g., “stations 401-1, 401-2,
401-3”), but Wentink does not appear to discuss a three-node
communication system. See Appeal Br. 15. As another example, Appellants
cite paragraph 147 of Wentink, but Wentink does not include a paragraph
numbered 147. See id. It appears Appellants may be citing to another
reference (i.e., Wentink (US 2004/0162024 Al; published Aug. 19, 2004)
(“Wentink ’024”)) that was previously cited by the Examiner during
prosecution of the application, and that appears to discuss a three-node
communication system (although Wentink ’024 also does not include a
paragraph numbered 147). Nevertheless, Appellants’ argument is not
relevant to the rejection at issue, and thus, is not persuasive.
6
Appeal 2016-001982
Application 12/717,134
participating node for a calculated time interval corresponding to a
completion time of the data transmission from the sending node to the
participating node,” as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited
in independent claims 9, 15, and 22. See Appeal Br. 16—18. More
specifically, Appellants argue Wentink fails to suggest a listening node that
ignores incoming packets that the listening node is not interested in
receiving. See Appeal Br. 16—17 (citing Wentink || 57—59 and 64).
Appellants also argue Gong teaches that a power down period is based on
one of a set of determining factors, and that none of the determining factors
teach or suggest a calculated time interval corresponding to a completion
time of data transmission from a sending node to a participating node. See
Appeal Br. 17—18 (citing Gong H 33 and 66—71).
We do not find these arguments persuasive. As discussed above, we
agree with the Examiner that Wentink discloses an AP sending a RTS frame
to a client device, and further discloses the AP (i.e., a “sending node”)
sending data to the client (i.e., “a listening node”) when it receives a CTS
packet from the client. See Final Act. 3 (citing Wentink ]f]f 44-47). We
further agree with the Examiner that Gong discloses a receiver determining a
power down period (i.e., “initiating a sleep mode on the non-participating
node”) based on an anticipated remaining transmit time of a packet (i.e., “a
calculated time interval corresponding to a completion time of the data
transmission from the sending node to the participating node”). See Final
Act. 4; see also Ans. 19; Gong 168. Thus, we agree with the Examiner that
the combination of Wentink and Gong teaches or suggests the
aforementioned claim element. As previously discussed, Appellants’
argument regarding Wentink does not address the portions cited by the
7
Appeal 2016-001982
Application 12/717,134
Examiner, and thus, is not persuasive. Further, we disagree with Appellants’
argument regarding Gong, as Gong teaches a power down period based on
an anticipated remaining transmit time of a packet, as previously discussed.
See Gong | 68.
Thus, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Wentink and Gong teaches or suggests all the elements of
independent claims 1,9, 15 and 22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of independent claims 1,9, 15, and 22. We further sustain the
rejection of claims 3—8, 10-13, 17—21, and 23—25, not argued separately.
See Appeal Br. 18.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3—13, 15, and 17—25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv)
AFFIRMED
8