Ex Parte Golparian

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 10, 2017

12605625 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2017)

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.
12/605,625 10/26/2009 Daniel Golparian 14.0427-US 1184
28116 7590
WestemGeco L.L.C.
10001 Richmond Avenue
IP Administration Center of Excellence
Houston, TX 77042
EXAMINER
WU, TSUNG YIN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2454
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/14/2017 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):
U S Docketing @ sib. com
jalverson@slb.com
SMarckesoni@slb.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte DANIEL GOLPARIAN
Appeal 2014-003420
Application 12/605,625
Technology Center 2400
Before LYNNE H. BROWNE, LISA M. GUIJT, and
TIMOTHY J. GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
GOODSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant Daniel Golparian appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the rejection of claims 2—6, 9—16, 18—22, 24, and 25. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 2, reproduced below, illustrates the subject matter on appeal:
2. A method for use with a survey data acquisition system
that acquires survey data regarding a subterranean structure,
comprising:
wirelessly communicating information between a wireless
survey receiver and a wireless concentrator in the survey data
Appeal 2014-003420
Application 12/605,625
acquisition system that acquires survey data regarding the
subterranean structure,
wherein wirelessly communicating the information
comprises using a wireless protocol that employs double slot
structures defined by a Digital Enhanced Cordless
Telecommunications (DECT) standard, and wherein the wireless
protocol employs time division multiplexing in which a frame
has a plurality of double slot structures including a first number
of double slot structures assigned for uplink communication
from the wireless survey receiver to the wireless concentrator,
and a second number of double slot structures assigned for
downlink communication from the wireless concentrator to the
wireless survey receiver, wherein the first number is larger than
the second number.
PRIOR ART
The Examiner relies on the following evidence in rejecting the claims
that are the subject of this appeal:
Barakat ’327 US 2006/0291327 A1 Dec. 28, 2006
Barakat ’094 US 2008/0219094 A1 Sept. 11, 2008
Ray US 2009/0225629 A1 Sept. 10,2009
Gibson, Jerry, The Communications Handbook (2nd ed. 2002) (“Gibson”).
European Telecommunications Standards Institute, ETS 300 175-3 (2nd ed.
1996) (“ETS”).
GROUNDS OF REJECTION
I. Claims 2—6, 9, 10, 14, 18—20, 24, and 25 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barakat ’327, Gibson, and
ETS. Final Act. 5-6.1
II. Claims 11—13 and 22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Barakat ’327, Gibson, ETS, and Ray. Id. at 26.
1 Citations to the “Final Action” refer to the Final Office Action mailed
March 20, 2013.
2
Appeal 2014-003420
Application 12/605,625
III. Claims 15, 16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Barakat ’327, Gibson, ETS, and Barakat ’094.
Id. at 31.
OPINION
Ground I
Claims 2—6, 9, 10, and 14
Appellant argues claims 2—6, 9, 10, and 14 as a group. App. Br. 5—8.
We select claim 2 as representative. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv) (2012).
Claims 3—6, 9, 10, and 14 stand or fall with claim 2.
The Examiner finds that Barakat ’327 teaches a method of acquiring
survey data that includes wireless communication between a receiver and a
concentrator. Final Act. 6 (citing Barakat ’327 35, 40). The Examiner
notes that Barakat ’327 discloses DECT as a conventional wireless approach
in its Background section, but the Examiner relies on Gibson as disclosing a
wireless protocol that employs slot structures defined by DECT and time
division multiplexing in which a frame has a plurality of slot structures. Id.
at 6—7 (citing Gibson, p. 79-3). The Examiner reasons that in time division
multiplexing, a frame necessarily has a plurality of slot structures “since
time division multiplexing is known by dividing a frame into multiple slots
for transmitting different data.” Id. at 7 (citing ETS § 4.2.2, Fig. 3). The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to use DECT as the
wireless communication standard in Barakat ’327’s system because Gibson
teaches that it is the best match for certain applications, and that it allows
asymmetric time slot allocation and provides higher data rates, thereby
3
Appeal 2014-003420
Application 12/605,625
increasing the speed of seismic data collection in Barakat ’327’s sensor
network. Id. at 8 (citing Gibson, p. 79-12).
Regarding the limitation that the frame has a greater number of slots
assigned for uplink than for downlink, the Examiner determines that it
would have been obvious to incorporate Gibson’s asymmetric time slot
allocation into Barakat ’327 to satisfy that limitation. The Examiner points
out that “the main purpose of Barakat[’327]’s seismic sensor network is to
collect data, and due to this purpose, the system needs more uplink
communication slots than downlink.” Id. at 8 (citing Barakat ’327,
Abstract). The Examiner relies on ETS as disclosing the use of double slot
structures instead of standard full slot structures. Id. at 9 (citing ETS
§ 4.2.2). Using double slot structures in Barakat ’327’s sensor network
would have been obvious, according to the Examiner, because a double-slot
carries more data per slot, and therefore avoids truncating the collected data
to fit a slot and recombining the data after transmission. Id. at 9.
Appellant argues that none of the three cited references teaches a
frame that has a plurality of double slot structures including more double
slot structures for uplink than downlink, and that the Examiner’s rejection is
based on impermissible hindsight. App. Br. 6—7; Reply Br. 2—3. Appellant
further argues that Barakat ’327 and Gibson would have led an ordinarily
skilled artisan to employ regular DECT slot structures, not double slot
structures as claimed. App. Br. 7. And ETS, according to Appellant, would
have led a skilled artisan to use the same number of double slot structures in
the uplink and downlink directions. Id.', Reply Br. 3.
Appellant’s arguments are unpersuasive because they attack the
references individually and do not respond to the combination of references
4
Appeal 2014-003420
Application 12/605,625
that the Examiner has proposed. See In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). We disagree with Appellant’s argument that the
rejection is based on impermissible hindsight because the Examiner provides
reasoning with rational underpinnings for each of the combinations in the
rejection. Appellant does not identify reliance by the Examiner on
knowledge gleaned only from Appellant’s disclosure and that was not
otherwise within the level of ordinary skill at the time of the invention. See
In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA 1971).
With respect to Appellant’s argument regarding double slot structures,
as summarized above, the Examiner relies on ETS, not Barakat ’327 or
Gibson, for the teaching of double slot structures. To the extent Appellant
intends to argue that Barakat ’327 or Gibson teach away from the use of
double slot structures, that argument is unpersuasive because Appellant does
not identify any portion of Barakat ’327 or Gibson that criticizes, discredits,
or discourages the use of double slot structures. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
Appellant’s argument that ETS would motivate a skilled artisan to use
the same number of double slot structures in the uplink and downlink
directions is unpersuasive for similar reasons. The Examiner’s rejection
relies on Barakat ’327 and Gibson for a frame that has a greater number of
slots assigned for uplink than for downlink; ETS is only relied on for the
substitution of double slots in lieu of standard full slot structures. Appellant
does not point to any teaching in ETS that discredits or discourages the use
of more slots for uplink than downlink.
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 2—6, 9, 10, and 14.
5
Appeal 2014-003420
Application 12/605,625
Claims 18—20, 24, and 25
Appellant’s arguments regarding claims 18—20, 24, and 25 simply
refer back to the arguments concerning claim 2. See App. Br. 8. For the
reasons discussed above, those arguments are not persuasive. Accordingly,
we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 18—20, 24, and 25.
Ground II
Claim 11
Claim 11 depends, ultimately, from claim 2 and recites that “control
information is broadcast from the wireless concentrator to multiple survey
receivers.” App. Br., Claims App’x ii.
The Examiner finds that Barakat ’327, Gibson, and ETS disclose
communicating control information but do not expressly disclose
broadcasting control information from the concentrator to multiple receivers.
Final Act. 26; see also id. at 14—15 (setting forth the Examiner’s findings as
to where ETS discloses communicating control information). The Examiner
finds that Ray discloses that a timing signal is periodically broadcast to the
seismic array over the mid-range network. Id. (citing Ray 139). The
Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to incorporate into the
sensor network of Barakat 327, Gibson, and ETS the teaching from Ray to
broadcast control information to sensors in a network
in order to simultaneously transmit the same control information
to each sensor. Instead of individually sending the control
information to each of the sensors, it combines the same control
information and broadcasts at once. As a result, it provides a
clean control scheme for the sensor network and reduces
6
Appeal 2014-003420
Application 12/605,625
communication errors in Barakat2006, Gibson, and ETS’s sensor
network.
Id. at 26—27.
Appellant argues that “Ray provides no teaching or hint that the
timing signal is part of a downlink double slot as recited in the context of
base claim 2.” App. Br. 9; see also Reply Br. 5 (“Ray clearly does not
contemplate the use of double slots to broadcast such timing signal.”). This
argument is not persuasive because it attacks Ray individually and does not
respond to the rejection as the Examiner has framed it. As the Examiner
reiterates in the Answer, the rejection relies on Ray for broadcasting, while
the other cited references teach sending downlink control information using
double slot structures. Ans. 33. Indeed, Appellant concedes that “Gibson
and ETS may refer to double slots,” but then argues that those references do
not teach broadcasting. Reply Br. 5. Here again, Appellant argues the
references individually and does not apprise us of error in the rejection as the
Examiner has framed it.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11.
Claims 12 and 13
Appellant’s argument regarding claims 12 and 13 refers back to the
arguments presented for claim 2. See App. Br. 10. For the reasons
discussed above, those arguments are not persuasive. Thus, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 12 and 13.
Claim 22
Claim 22 depends from claim 18 and recites that the wireless
concentrator includes
7
Appeal 2014-003420
Application 12/605,625
a first DECT chipset and a first directional multi-element
antenna subsystem associated with the first DECT chipset to
communicate using a first carrier having a first frequency, and
a second DECT chipset and a second directional multi­
element antenna system associated with the second DECT
chipset to communicate using a second carrier having a second,
different frequency.
App. Br., Claims App’x iv.
The Examiner finds that Ray teaches the features of this claim
because it teaches the use of phased antenna arrays to transmit between
wireless communications units at different parameters, such as different
frequencies, in order to minimize interference. Final Act. 30 (citing Ray
52, 54). The Examiner determines that it would have been obvious to
incorporate these teachings from Ray into the combination of Barakat,
Gibson, and ETS in order to obtain the benefit that Ray teaches for this
feature—to minimize interference with other transmissions. Id. at 30—31
(citing Ray 1 54).
Appellant argues that Ray does not disclose first and second DECT
chipsets. App. Br. 11.
In the Answer, the Examiner responds that DECT chipsets are
inherently present in the proposed combination of Barakat, Gibson, and ETS
because DECT chipsets are necessary to implement the DECT protocol.
Ans. 33. According to the Examiner, the feature of claim 22 that is absent
from the combination of Barakat, Gibson, and ETS “is not the DECT
chipsets; it is the method to operate the DECT chipsets in different
frequencies.” Id. The Examiner explains that Ray discloses such a method
insofar as it teaches “a first and a second communication unit 40 (equated to
8
Appeal 2014-003420
Application 12/605,625
chipset) for operating in different frequencies] in different coverage
area[s].” Id. at 34 (citing Ray 1 54, Fig. 2).
In Reply, Appellant argues that the combination of Barakat, Gibson,
and ETS “may disclose one DECT chipset; however the Examiner has
submitted no evidence that Barakat2006, Gibson, and ETS would inherently
include first and second DECT chipsets. . ..” Reply 7. As to Ray,
Appellant argues that Ray’s paragraph 54 “does not describe multiple
communication units 40; rather | [0054] of Ray refers to adjusting
frequencies, which would merely indicate that the frequency of one
communication unit would be adjusted.” Id.
Appellant’s arguments do not persuade us of error in the Examiner’s
rejection. With respect to the claimed “first DECT chipset” and “second
DECT chipset,” as summarized above, the Examiner finds that Ray’s
communication units 40 correspond to the first and second chipsets.
Contrary to Appellant’s argument that Ray does not describe multiple
communication units 40 (Reply 7), Ray discloses multiple strings 180a,
180b, 180c, each of which includes multiple communication units. See Ray
| 54 (“[T]he physical seismic unit layout of a portion of array 140 defined as
a string 180 may be dependent on the mid-range transmission capabilities of
the communications units 40 in the adjacent string.”), Fig. 2; see also id.
1 53 (“Each string 180a, 180b, and 180c illustrates a different potential
transmission path defined by wireless links 230 between the wireless
communication units 40 within a string.”). Appellant does not dispute the
Examiner’s finding that a “DECT” chipset is necessary to communicate
using the DECT protocol. Ans. 33. Indeed, Appellant concedes that the
combination of Barakat, Gibson, and ETS “may disclose one DECT
9
Appeal 2014-003420
Application 12/605,625
chipset.” Reply 7. Thus, the Examiner has presented an adequate
explanation of how each element of claim 22 is present in the proposed
combination.
Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 22.
Ground III
Appellant’s argument regarding claims 15, 16, and 21 simply refers
back to the arguments presented for other claims from which they depend.
See App. Br. 11. For the reasons discussed above, those arguments are not
persuasive. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 15, 16, and
21.
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 2—6, 9, 10, 14, 18—20, 24, and 25
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barakat ’327, Gibson,
and ETS.
We affirm the rejection of claims 11—13 and 22 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barakat ’327, Gibson, ETS, and Ray.
We affirm the rejection of claims 15, 16, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Barakat ’327, Gibson, ETS, and Barakat
’094.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
10