Ex Parte Gerszberg et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 30, 2014

11074221 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014)

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.
11/074,221 03/07/2005 Irwin Gerszberg 2004-0059 3286
83658 7590 06/30/2014
AT & T Legal Department - WS
Attn: Patent Docketing
Room 2A-212
One AT & T Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
EXAMINER
MCKIE, GINA M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2631
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/30/2014 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 IRWIN GERSZBERG, PAULA SHALA HENRY,
and LARRIE SUTLIFF
_____________

Appeal 2012-001218
Application 11/074,221
Technology Center 2600
______________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, DAVID M. KOHUT, and
JEREMY J. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judges.

KOHUT, Administrative Patent Judge

DECISION ON APPEAL

This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-22.1 We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

INVENTION
The invention is directed to a method and apparatus for reducing
interference in a broadband powerline communication system, whereby
knowledge of the spectrum characteristics of a local radio environment is

1 Claims 5, 18, and 23-28 were previously cancelled.
Appeal 2012-001218
Application 11/074,221

2
used to improve the performance of the broadband powerline system. Spec.
¶ 7. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and is reproduced below:
1. A method of operation of a broadband powerline
communication system that is transmitting data over a
predetermined range of modulated carrier frequencies not used
exclusively by the broadband powerline communication
system, the method comprising:
turning off transmissions over the predetermined range of
modulated carrier frequencies in response to a control
instruction;
determining spectrum characteristics of a radio
environment over the predetermined range of modulated carrier
frequencies in a vicinity of the broadband powerline
communication system after turning off the transmissions; and
masking certain ones of the predetermined range of
carrier frequencies between particular pairs of adjacent nodes in
the broadband powerline communication system based on the
spectrum characteristics, such that other pairs of adjacent nodes
in the broadband powerline communication system continue to
transmit data over the certain ones of the predetermined range
of carrier frequencies.
REFERENCES
Yamagata US 4,768,219 Aug. 30, 1988

Chuprun US 6,385,434 B1 May 7, 2002

Schwager US 7,158,013 B2 Jan. 2, 2007
(filed July 14, 2004)

REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
Claims 1-3, 6-9, 16, 17, and 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Schwager and Chuprun. Ans. 5-13.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schwager, Chuprun, and Yamagata. Ans. 13.
Appeal 2012-001218
Application 11/074,221

3
Claims 10 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Chuprun and Schwager. Ans. 14-16.
Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Chuprun, Schwager, and Yamagata. Ans. 17-18.

ISSUES
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Schwager and
Chuprun teaches or suggests “masking certain ones of the predetermined
range of carrier frequencies between particular pairs of adjacent nodes in the
broadband powerline communication system . . . , such that the other pairs of
adjacent nodes in the broadband powerline communication system continue
to transmit data over the certain ones of the predetermined range of carrier
frequencies,” as recited in independent claim 1?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Schwager,
Chuprun, and Yamagata teaches or suggests “receiving an indication from a
user that the user has received an identifier on a particular frequency at a
particular location,” as recited in claim 4?
Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Schwager and
Chuprun teaches or suggests “transmitting transmission control instructions
to particular pairs of adjacent transmitter/receiver nodes in the broadband
powerline communication system to turn off transmissions over the
predetermined range of modulated carrier frequencies,” as recited in
independent claim 16?
Appeal 2012-001218
Application 11/074,221

4
ANALYSIS
Rejection of Independent Claim 1 over Schwager and Chuprun
Claim 1 requires masking certain frequencies of a predetermined
range of frequencies between a particular pair of adjacent nodes in a
broadband powerline communication system such that other pairs of
adjacent nodes in the broadband powerline communication system continue
to transmit data over the certain frequencies that were masked between the
particular pair of nodes. Appellants argue that Schwager cannot be relied
upon to teach this limitation because claim 1 requires two pairs of adjacent
nodes and Schwager teaches that “nodes 302 and 306 are the only nodes in
the powerline communication system.” App. Br. 10-11 (emphasis added by
Appellants). In addition, Appellants contend that “Schwager examines the
system as a whole and designates a communication frequency range for the
entire PLC system.” App. Br. 9 (citing Schwager 3:55-60 and TABLE, S1a-
S2b).
However, the Examiner finds that pair of nodes 302 and 306 listen for
interference and indicate the frequency bands that have to be omitted during
powerline communication based on the received interference. Ans. 20
(citing Schwager 4:56-65). The Examiner then finds that it would have been
obvious:
to one of ordinary skill in the art after reading [column 4, lines
56-65] of Schwager that frequency bands used for
communications between node 302 and any nodes other than
306 are not masked. Only the frequency bands being used for
communications between particular nodes communicating on a
particular powerline are masked when interference is detected.
Ans. 20-21 (emphasis added).

Appeal 2012-001218
Application 11/074,221

5
We agree with the Examiner.
Schwager teaches that when interference is detected the frequencies
that are causing the interference “must be omitted” so that communication
can occur without the interference noise. Schwager, col. 4, ll. 56-65. While
Schwager states that “every node” performs this operation, Schwager only
refers to a pair of nodes so “every node” would perform the masking of
frequency bands operation. This “every node” disclosure does not
necessarily mean that the frequency bands would be omitted across all
nodes, or even adjacent nodes. We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 20-21)
that, based on the teachings of Schwager, having multiple pairs of adjacent
nodes in a powerline communication system is old and well known to one of
ordinary skill in the art. Further, as indicated above, we find that Schwager
explicitly teaches that each pair of nodes can listen for interference and can
mask out certain frequency bands based on received interference. As found
by the Examiner, we agree that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine one old element (i.e., a powerline
communication system having multiple pairs of nodes in communication)
with another old element (i.e., the ability to mask out certain frequency
bands between a pair of nodes) according to known methods to yield
predictable results (i.e., only masking frequencies between the particular pair
of nodes that find interference noise), because “there would be no
reason/benefit to mask frequencies unaffected by interference.” Ans. 21; see
KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007).
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 1.
Appeal 2012-001218
Application 11/074,221

6
Rejection of Claim 4 over Schwager, Chuprun, and Yamagata
Claim 4 recites “receiving an indication from a user that the user has
received an identifier on a particular frequency at a particular location.”
Appellants contend that Yamagata teaches that a base unit can receive an
indication that a cordless telephone unit is using a particular channel by
receiving an ID code associated with the cordless telephone on that channel.
App. Br. 15. However, Appellants contend that this is not the same as what
is claimed because the claim requires receiving an indication that the user
received “an identifier” or “any means by which a particular location could
be identified.” App. Br. 15 (citing Yamagata 2:38-46; 11:41–12:54).
In response, the Examiner clarifies that Yamagata teaches that handset
unit 1 receives an “identifying code ID transmitted by base unit 2 [or user]”
and further that the ID code is sent via “the output signal,” or on a particular
frequency, at the particular location of the handset unit 1. Ans. 13 (citing
Yamagata 11:41-12:54). We thus agree with the Examiner that Yamagata
teaches the disputed limitation. Ans. 13 and 22-23. Appellants have not
addressed the Examiner’s specific findings that refer to “an identifying ID
code” that is sent between the base unit 1 and handset unit 2 on a particular
frequency. We find the Examiner’s interpretation of the claim term
“identifier” is satisfied by Yamagata’s “identifying ID code” and consistent
with Appellants’ Specification and Appellants’ have not provided sufficient
evidence to the contrary.
Thus, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection
of claim 4.
Appeal 2012-001218
Application 11/074,221

7
Rejection of Independent Claim 6 over Schwager and Chuprun and
Independent Claims 10 and 13 over Chuprun and Schwager
Appellants make the same arguments with respect to claims 6, 10, and
13 as with claim 1. App. Br. 12 and 16-17. As such, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 6, 10, and 13 for the same reasons as
discussed supra with respect to claim 1.

Rejection of Claim 16 over Schwager and Chuprun
Claim 16 recites “transmitting transmission control instructions to
particular pairs of adjacent transmitter/receiver nodes in the broadband
powerline communication system to turn off transmissions over the
predetermined range of modulated carrier frequencies.” In particular,
Appellants contend that “Schwager discloses listening for interference in
occupied broadcast bands, but does not disclose listening for control
instructions, nor does the cited passage of Schwager disclose transmission of
control instructions.” App. Br. 13. The Examiner finds that Schwager
teaches that each of the nodes have knowledge of, and therefore have
received control instructions relating to, when and how to listen for the
interference noise between each pair of nodes. Ans. 9-10 (citing Schwager
5:11-22).
We agree with the Examiner (Ans. 9-10), because each pair of nodes
in Schwager has knowledge of “a gap 602a/b in the time framing (cf. FIG.
6a) or the frequency band (cf. FIG. 6b) during which the PLC nodes 302 and
306 can screen (‘listen’) for occupied broadcast bands that should be omitted
during powerline communication . . . .” Schwager 5:11-22. It would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to send to the pair of nodes
Appeal 2012-001218
Application 11/074,221

8
control instructions that indicate to the pair of nodes the method of
monitoring for interference, such as when to detect the gap 602a, as taught
by Schwager.
Accordingly, for the reasons stated supra, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 16.

Rejection of Claims 2, 3, 7-9, 17, and 19-22 over Schwager and Chuprun
and Claims 11, 12, 14, and 15 over Chuprun, Schwager, and Yamagata
Appellants argue that claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19-22
are allowable based upon their dependency on one of independent claims 1,
6, 10, 13, or 16. App. Br. 14 and 17. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 2, 3, 7-9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, and 19-22 for the reasons
stated supra with respect to independent claims 1, 6, 10, 13, and 16.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Schwager
and Chuprun teaches or suggests “masking certain ones of the predetermined
range of carrier frequencies between particular pairs of adjacent nodes in the
broadband powerline communication system . . . , such that the other pairs of
adjacent nodes in the broadband powerline communication system continue
to transmit data over the certain ones of the predetermined range of carrier
frequencies,” as recited in independent claim 1.
The Examiner did not err in finding that that the combination of
Schwager, Chuprun, and Yamagata teaches or suggests “receiving an
Appeal 2012-001218
Application 11/074,221

9
indication from a user that the user has received an identifier on a particular
frequency at a particular location,” as recited in claim 4.
The Examiner did not err in finding that the combination of Schwager
and Chuprun teaches or suggests “transmitting transmission control
instructions to particular pairs of adjacent transmitter/receiver nodes in the
broadband powerline communication system to turn off transmissions over
the predetermined range of modulated carrier frequencies,” as recited in
independent claim 16.

SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-4, 6-17, and 19-22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

Klh