Ex Parte Gerszberg et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 30, 201411074221 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 30, 2014) Copy Citation 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation