Ex Parte Elliott et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardApr 6, 2016

12537085 (P.T.A.B. Apr. 6, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 12/537,085 08/06/2009 3624 7590 04/08/2016 VOLPE AND KOENIG, P,C UNITED PLAZA 30 SOUTH 17TH STREET, 18th Floor PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Brig Barnum Elliott 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. DBOA-USCN205797 4646 EXAMINER PEREZ, JULIO R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2644 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 04/08/2016 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): eoffice@volpe-koenig.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte BRIG BARNUM ELLIOT and DAVID SPENCER PEARSON Appeal2014-005434 Application 12/537,085 Technology Center 2600 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 seek our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) of the Examiner's rejection of claims 19-24 and 35-70. Claims 1-18 and 25-34 have been canceled. Br. 10-15. We have jurisdiction over the pending claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We AFFIRM. 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Tri-County Excelsior Foundation. Br. 2. Appeal2014-005434 Application 12/537,085 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' Invention Appellants' invention generally relates to implementing energy efficient data forwarding mechanisms in ad-hoc, multi-node wireless networks. Spec. 3. Claim 19, which is illustrative, reads as follows: 19. A method, comprising: receiving, at a wireless destination node in a wireless multi-node network, a beacon message noting a presence of another node; broadcasting, at the wireless destination node, a routing message to at least one other node in the wireless multi-node network in response to the received beacon message; receiving, at the wireless destination node, an additional message compnsmg: a unique identifier for a wireless source node, and sequencing data indicating a sequence of the message; extracting distance data indicating a number of hops to reach the wireless destination node from the wireless source node in the wireless network; and updating a forwarding table, wherein the forwarding table includes identifiers for neighboring sensor nodes. Rejections2 Claims 19, 23, 24, and 35-70 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ahmed et al. (US 6,816,460 2 The rejection of claims 19, 23, and 24 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph, has been withdrawn. Ans. 2. 2 Appeal2014-005434 Application 12/537,085 Bl; Nov. 9, 2004) and Poor (US 6,028,857; Feb. 22, 2000). Non-Final Act. 3-11. Claims 20-22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combination of Ahmed, Poor, and Arrakoski et al. (US 2002/0027894 Al; Mar. 7, 2002). Non-Final Act. 11-12. Issue on Appeal Did the Examiner err by finding the combination of Ahmed and Poor teaches or suggests "receiving, at a wireless destination node in a wireless multi-node network, a beacon message noting a presence of another node," as recited in claim 19? ANALYSIS Appellants contend the combination of Ahmed and Poor fails to teach or suggest the disputed limitation. Br. 7-8. Appellants contend: Br. 7. [T]he Ahmed excerpt relied upon by the Examiner merely discloses that "[t]he omnidirectional antenna and pilot signal are part of a topology sensing scheme (referred to further below) which enables nodes to sense the presence of one another and also to exchange some information useful for making link setup decisions" (emphasis added). However, simply disclosing a "pilot signal" and "a topology sensing scheme (referred to further below) which enables nodes to sense the presence of one another," as in Ahmed, simply fails to teach or suggest appellant's claimed "a beacon message noting a presence of another node" (emphasis added), as claimed by appellant in the context of the entire claim. Appellants' arguments amount to a naked assertion that the claim limitation at issue is not found in Ahmed and, therefore, are not persuasive 3 Appeal2014-005434 Application 12/537,085 of error. Furthermore, and for the reasons that follow, we find Ahmed teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. As noted by Appellants, the Examiner finds Ahmed's pilot signal and topology sensing scheme teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. Non- Final Act. 4 (citing Ahmed 3:5-11, 16-21); Ans. 3. Appellants' Specification does not expressly define the term "beacon message." Appellants' Specification, however, does provide that beacon messages "permit sensor nodes to determine a minimum hop path to a monitor point in network 100." Spec. 8. As such, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term "beacon message" consistent with Appellants' Specification includes a message that permits a node to determine a minimum hop path to another node in a network. Regarding the pilot signal and topology sensing scheme, Ahmed teaches "each node periodically (or continually) broadcasts an omnidirectional pilot signal modified to additionally convey location information to any node within its transmission radius, r." Ahmed 6:24--27. Ahmed further teaches "each node listens for pilot signals transmitted by other nodes within hearing distance and recovers the GPS information for each received pilot signal for storage in a table such as the location table of FIG. 3." Ahmed 6:38--42. As such, Ahmed teaches or suggests "receiving, at a wireless destination node in a wireless multi-node network, a ... message noting a presence of another node." Further, Ahmed teaches that each node uses the topology sensing scheme to determine its direct neighbor nodes (i.e., surrounding nodes that facilitate geometric routing with which the node sets up point-to-point links (Ahmed 6:50-54)) during computation of a local topology. Ahmed 6: 13-15, 30-31. According to Ahmed, "local topology 100 not only defines the 4 Appeal2014-005434 Application 12/537,085 nodes that are part of local topology 100 but also how node 105 is connected to these nodes (i.e., a 'network graph,' or simply 'graph')." Ahmed 4:9-13. Ahmed teaches that node 105 stores a local topology table, illustrated in Figure 2, which corresponds to local topology 100. Ahmed 4: 16-18. Ahmed also teaches that the local topology table includes information identifying a next hop node and a number of hops for each destination node included in the local topology. Ahmed, Fig. 2. As such, Ahmed teaches or suggests that the pilot signal, modified to include a node's location information, permits each node to determine a minimum hop path to destination node. Ahmed, therefore, teaches or suggests the disputed limitation. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 19 and claims 20-24 and 35-70, which include commensurate limitations and for which Appellants rely on the arguments presented for claim 19 and do not raise any additional arguments. See Br. 7-8. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's rejections of claims 19-24 and 35-70. 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)(l )(iv). AFFIRMED 5