Ex Parte Del Prado Pavon et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardSep 24, 2012

10559840 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 24, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JAVIER DEL PRADO PAVON and SAI SHANKAR NANDAGOPALAN ____________ Appeal 2010-005584 Application 10/559,840 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before JOSEPH L. DIXON, ST. JOHN COURTENAY III, and ANDREW J. DILLON, Administrative Patent Judges. COURTENAY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-005584 Application 10/559,840 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE The Patent Examiner rejected claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20. Claims 3 and 13 were canceled. Appellants appeal therefrom under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a). We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION This invention relates to data transmission techniques, and more particularly, to an optimized method for efficiently transmitting data frames using MAC protocols, such as wireless IEEE 802.11 protocol. (Spec. 1). Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of transmitting data frames over a data network, comprising transmitting a plural number of MAC (Media Access Control) data frames, each MAC data frame including a header, a data field, and a frame check sequence (FCS), with only a single PLCP (Physical Layer Control Procedure) overhead; and transmitting a concatenated MAC header indicating said plural number of MAC data frames with the single PLCP. (Disputed limitation emphasized). REJECTION Claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Nishimura (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0210673 A1, November 13, 2003) in view of Ho (US Patent Application Publication No. 2003/0169769 A1, September 11, 2003). Appeal 2010-005584 Application 10/559,840 3 GROUPING OF CLAIMS Based on Appellants' arguments, we will decide the appeal of the obviousness rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 on the basis of claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants' contentions regarding the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of the claims. We adopt as our own: (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Answer in response to arguments made in Appellants' Appeal Brief. (Ans. 11-14). We highlight and address specific findings and arguments below. Issue: Under § 103, did the Examiner err in finding that the cited references, either alone or in combination, would have taught or suggested "transmitting a concatenated MAC header indicating said plural number of MAC data frames with the single PLCP," within the meaning of claim 1 and commensurate language of claim 11? Appellants make the following contentions: Appellant's claimed invention is completely different because the combination of Nishimura and Ho does not disclose or suggest a header indicating the number of MAC data frames (wherein each MAC data frame includes a header, a data field, and a frame check sequence). As explained above, Ho relates to the MSDU, which is a subset of the aggregation frame, while Nishimura relates to the MAC packet, which is a subset of the MPDU. Therefore, the claimed invention would not be obvious to one of ordinary skill in view of the combination of Nishimura and Ho because the cited references appear to be Appeal 2010-005584 Application 10/559,840 4 related to the number of subsets of the claimed MAC data frame and not the number of MAC frames in the MAC sublayer. Furthermore, neither Ho nor Nishimura suggests a need for a header to indicate the number of aggregation frames (Ho) or the number of MPDUs (Nishimura). As such, the combination of Nishimura and Ho does not disclose all of the limitations of claim 1. Furthermore, as pointed out above, the combination of Nishimura and Ho would not motivate or enable one of ordinary skill in the art to invent the features of claim 1. (Reply Br. 6-7). Based upon our review of the record, we find Appellants' principal argument urging patentability is predicated on non-functional descriptive material (i.e., the format of a data frame). (App. Br. 6-8; Reply Br. 6-7). Claim 1 merely requires transmitting MAC data frames according to a specific format (i.e., a data structure per se). Claim 11 is broadly directed to forming a frame structure of packet data including MAC data frames. As such, claims 1 and 11 do not positively recite that the contents of the data (or arrangement or structure of the data) is used to change or alter any computer function. 1 See Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1887-90 (BPAI 2008) (precedential); Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d 1272 (BPAI 2005) (informative) (Federal Circuit Appeal No. 2006-1003, aff’d, Rule 36 (June 12, 2006)); Ex parte Mathias, 84 USPQ2d 1276 (BPAI 2005) (informative), aff’d, 191 Fed. 1 Cf. Functional descriptive material consists of data structures and computer programs which impart functionality when employed as a computer component. See Interim Guidelines for Examination of Patent Applications for Patent Subject Matter Eligibility (“Guidelines”), 1300 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 142 (November 22, 2005), especially pages 151-152. (The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure includes substantively the same guidance. See MPEP, 8th edition (revised Sep. 2007), § 2106.01.) Appeal 2010-005584 Application 10/559,840 5 Appx. 959 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Thus, Appellants' arguments urging patentability are predicated on non-functional descriptive material, which we do not give patentable weight. Even if we arguendo accorded patentable weight to the disputed data frame, we are not persuaded by Appellants' arguments for at least the following reasons: (1) We agree with the Examiner's findings: Ho et al. discloses a method and apparatus for frame aggregation of MAC data (see paragraph 15) wherein the aggregated frame includes a frame sub-body count field 126 that indicates the number of frames that are aggregated (see paragraph 41 and figure 6). Since Nishimura already discloses transmitting a plurality of MAC data frames as recited by claim 1, the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) prior art rejection relies on the count value as taught by Ho et al. to indicate the number of MAC data frames that are combined with a single PLCP header as taught by Nishimura. (Ans. 12; emphasis removed and added). The Examiner relies on Ho's general teaching of a frame counter (126) in the header (116) that indicates the number of data frames in the frame body (118) behind the header (116). (Ans. 12; Ho, Fig. 6). (2) We also agree with the Examiner's responsive argument: While the Appellant argues that the frame subbody 132 as disclosed by Ho is not the same or equivalent to a MAC data frame as in Appellants' claim 1, the prior art rejection does not require Ho et al. to disclose [a] MAC data frame because the primary reference already discloses the limitation. (Ans. 13). Appeal 2010-005584 Application 10/559,840 6 (3) We agree with the Examiner's underlying factual findings and ultimate legal conclusion of obviousness as further articulated in the responsive arguments: With respect to the combination of Nishimura and Ho et al. in the 35 U.S.C. 103(a) prior art rejection, it is noted that Nishimura and Ho et al. both disclose a system and method for combining and transmitting a plurality of data units into an extended frame or packet. Nishimura further discloses detecting the size of the received packet to determine whether the received packet is a conventional packet with a single data unit or a more efficient packet that contains a plurality of data units (see paragraphs 80-83). By using the frame sub-body count field 126 as disclosed by Ho et al., Nishimura will be able to determine whether the received packet contains a plurality of data units for processing without the step of detecting the size of the received packet. Therefore, the motivation for using the frame sub-body count field with the apparatus of transmitting combined data frames over a data network is to provide information regarding the transmitted data in order to allow the receiver to determine whether a received packet contains multiple data units without having to detect the size of the received packet. (Ans. 13). Moreover, Appellants fail to present evidence or substantive arguments to rebut the Examiner's proffered motivation to combine Nishimura and Ho. (See Ans. 4). For the above reasons, we are not persuaded of Examiner error regarding the rejection of claim 1. Regarding the independent claim 11, Appellants contend claim 11 is allowable for the same reasons claim 1 is allowable. (Reply Br. 7). We did not find these arguments persuasive for the same reasons discussed above regarding claim 1. Appeal 2010-005584 Application 10/559,840 7 Regarding the dependent claims 2, 4-10, 12, and 14-20, Appellants contend these claims are allowable by virtue of their dependency from claims 1 and 11. (Reply Br. 7-8). For the reasons discussed above regarding claims 1 and 11, we disagree. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and that of claims 2, 4-12, and 14-20, which fall therewith. DECISION2 We affirm the Examiner's rejection of claim 1, 2, 4-12, and 14-20 under §103. No time for taking any action connected with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED peb 2 We observe that claims 14 and 15 depend from claim 13, which has been cancelled. Since claims 14 and 15 depend from a cancelled claim, one of ordinary skill in the art would be unable to determine the metes and bounds of these claims. In the event of further prosecution, we leave it to the Examiner to consider a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.