Ex Parte Denteneer

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 21, 2016

13143447 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 13/143,447 07/06/2011 Theodorus Jacobus Johannes Denteneer 24737 7590 03/23/2016 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS P.O. BOX 3001 BRIARCLIFF MANOR, NY 10510 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. 2009P00226WOUS 5737 EXAMINER CUNNINGHAM, KEVIN M ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2461 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/23/2016 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): debbie.henn@philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte THEODORUS JACOBUS JOHANNES DENTENEER Appeal2014-006221 Application 13/143,447 Technology Center 2400 Before DAVID M. KOHUT, MELISSA A. HAAPALA, and SCOTT B. HOWARD, Administrative Patent Judges. RAAP ALA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a final rejection of claims 1, 6, and 10, which are all of the claims currently rejected in the application. 1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Claims 2-5 and 8 have been canceled. App. Br. 13. The Examiner withdrew the rejection of claims 7 and 9. Ans. 4. Appeal2014-006221 Application 13/143,447 INVENTION Appellant's invention is directed to reservation of transmission times for communications in mesh networks. Spec 1. Claim 1 is exemplary of the subject matter on appeal: 1. A method for reserving transmission time for transmission between a first mesh station and a second mesh station in a mesh network, said second mesh station having at least one neighbor station, the method comprising: the first mesh station requesting reservation information regarding existing reservations from the second mesh station, the second mesh station sending an advertisement including its own reservation information as well as reservation information concerning the at least one neighbor station, and the first mesh station determining a new reservation based on the received advertisement and on its own reservation information, wherein the reservation information of the first mesh station and the reservation information of the second mesh station each include a remaining reservation capacity representing a difference between a reservation threshold and a reservation fraction. REJECTION ON APPEAL Claims 1, 6, and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being obvious over Kangude (US 2007 /0060141 Al; published Mar. 15, 2007). Final Act. 2--4.2 2 See supra note 1. 2 Appeal2014-006221 Application 13/143,447 ISSUE Appellant's contentions present us with the following issue: Did the Examiner err in finding Kangude teaches or suggests "the reservation information of the first mesh station and the reservation information of the second mesh station each include a remaining reservation capacity representing a difference between a reservation threshold and a reservation fraction" ("remaining reservation capacity" limitation), as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS Appellant contends Kangude does not teach the "remaining reservation capacity" limitation recited in claim 1. App. Br. 7-9; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant acknowledges Kangude teaches an MDA (mesh deterministic access) Access Fraction and an MDA Access fraction limit and admits it would be within the ability of one of ordinary skill in the art to subtract the MDA Access Fraction from the MDA Fraction Limit. App. Br. 8. However, Appellant argues there is no suggestion in Kangude to modify the messages to include such information and that such a modification would not be a simple variation because it would require a different frame structure. Id.; Reply Br. 2. Appellant further argues the Examiner provides no citations to Kangude or any other cited reference for supporting the proffered motivations for modifying Kangude. Reply Br. 3. We are not persuaded of error by Appellant's arguments. We agree with and adopt as our own the findings, reasons, and conclusions set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and in the Examiner's Answer. We note the following primarily for emphasis. 3 Appeal2014-006221 Application 13/143,447 The Examiner finds, and we agree, Kangude teaches advertisements (reservation information) that includes a MAP (MDA Access Fraction) (reservation fraction) and a MAP limit (reservation threshold). Ans. 4 (citing Kangude iii! 34, 51, 61 ); see also Final Act. 2-3. As noted above, Appellant does not dispute these findings. The Examiner further finds "it would have been routine skill in the art, at the time of the invention to subtract the maximum limit [MAP limit] minus the busy time [MAP] to get the available time for the remaining capacity and it is a simple variation to explicitly advertise it." Ans. 4--5. We agree. An obviousness analysis "need not seek out precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007). Moreover, Appellant admits the subtraction is within the ability of one of skill in the art and does not provide persuasive argument, or evidence, that a modification to the frame structure to include the information would not be a simple variation within the capability of one of ordinary skill in the art. The Examiner additionally finds the simple calculation to derive the remaining capacity must be done by either the receiving mesh station or the transmitting station, and the motivation to modify Kangude to have the transmitting station make the calculation is to reduce processing at the receiving mesh station. Ans. 5. Contrary to Appellant's argument that the Examiner must cite to a reference to support a motivation to modify Kangude, "[t]he obviousness analysis cannot be confined by a formalistic conception of the words teaching, suggestion, and motivation, or by overemphasis on the importance of published articles and the explicit 4 Appeal2014-006221 Application 13/143,447 content of issued patents." KSR, 550 U.S. at 419. Instead, the relevant inquiry is whether the Examiner has set forth "some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness." In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (cited with approval inKSR, 550 U.S. at 418). We agree with the Examiner's articulated reasoning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would modify Kangude to have the transmitting station calculate and advertise the difference between the MAF limit and the MAF to derive the remaining reservation capacity and determine it is sufficient to support the conclusion of obviousness. For the reasons stated above, Appellant fails to persuade us of error in the rejection of claim 1. Accordingly, we sustain the 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) rejection of: (1) claim 1; (2) dependent claim 6, for which Appellant merely reiterates the arguments made for claim 1 (App. Br 9-10); and (3) dependent claim 10, for which Appellant relies on the same arguments made for claim 1 (App. Br. 11 ). DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1, 6, and 10. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(f). 5 Appeal2014-006221 Application 13/143,447 AFFIRMED 6