Ex Parte Howard

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 20, 2018

12959434 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 20, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/959,434 12/03/2010
88032 7590 03/22/2018
Jordan IP Law, LLC
12501 Prosperity Drive, Suite 401
Silver Spring, MD 20904
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
JOHN S. HOW ARD
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.
P20015C 5084
EXAMINER
LAI, DANIEL
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2641
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2018 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):
info@jordaniplaw.com
admin@jordaniplaw.com
inteldocs _ docketing@cpaglobal.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN S. HOWARD
Appeal2017-010297
Application 12/959,434
Technology Center 2600
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CATHERINE SHIANG, and
JASON M. REPKO, Administrative Patent Judges.
SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 31--40, which are all the claims pending and rejected in
the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.
Appeal2017-010297
Application 12/959,434
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
According to the Specification, the present invention relates to power
conservation for a wireless device. See generally Spec. 1. Claim 31 is
exemplary:
31. A method comprising:
with a wireless USB (WUSB) device, in response to a
control packet indicating whether the WUSB device is targeted
for communication during an upcoming macro time slot of a
superframe, the superframe having a fixed duration and a
defined number of macro time slots that are successive in time
within the superframe, powering down the WUSB device
during the upcoming macro time slot based on whether the
WUSB device is targeted for communication during the macro
time slot, wherein the upcoming macro time slot comprises a
future macro timeslot, and wherein the WUSB device is
adaptively assigned to several, one or no macro time slots
during the superframe.
References and Rejections
Claims 31--40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 31-33 and 37 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Nakamura (US 6,138,001; Oct. 24, 2000) and
Hamdi (US 6,912,615 Bl; June 28, 2005).
Claim 38 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakamura, Hamdi, and Hester (US 2005/0058084 Al;
Mar. 17, 2005).
2
Appeal2017-010297
Application 12/959,434
Claim 39 is rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Nakamura, Hamdi, Hester, and Larsson (US 6,463,307
B 1; Oct. 8, 2002).
Claims 34--36 and 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Nakamura and Hester.
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellant's arguments, and agree with and adopt
the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this
appeal is taken (Final Act. 5-14) and (ii) the Answer (Ans. 2-16) to the
extent they are consistent with our analysis below.
35 US.C. § 112, First Paragraph
The Examiner determines claims 31--40 fail to comply with the
written description requirement with respect to "wherein the WUSB device
is adaptively assigned to several, one or no macro time slots during the
superframe," as recited in independent claim 31 (and similar limitations
recited in independent claims 34 and 37) and corresponding dependent
claims. See Final Act. 5---6; Ans. 16.
Appellant cites paragraphs 15-28 of the Specification for supporting
the disputed claim limitations, but does not explain why the cited portions
reasonably convey to skilled artisans that Appellant possessed the claimed
invention as of the filing date. See Supplemental Appeal Brief ("Br.") 19.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error. To satisfy the written
description requirement, the disclosure must reasonably convey to skilled
artisans that Appellant possessed the claimed invention as of the filing date.
3
Appeal2017-010297
Application 12/959,434
See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir.
2010) (en bane). Specifically, the description must "clearly allow persons of
ordinary skill in the art to recognize that [the inventor] invented what is
claimed" and
the test requires an objective inquiry into the four comers of the
specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill
in the art. Based on that inquiry, the specification must
describe an invention understandable to that skilled artisan and
show that the inventor actually invented the invention claimed.
Ariad Pharms., Inc, 598 F.3d at 1351 (citations omitted).
As pointed out by the Examiner, the Specification teaches "[e] ach
wireless network 20 may be assigned several, one or even no macro time
slots during a particular superframe" (emphasis added). See Final Act. 6
(citing Spec. i-f 15). In contrast, claim 31 recites "the WUSB device is
adaptively assigned to several, one or no macro time slots during the
superframe" (emphasis added). Claim 34 recites "each of the plurality of
wireless devices is adaptively assigned to several, one or no macro time slots
during the superframe" (emphasis added). Claim 37 recites "each of the at
least one computing device is adaptively assigned to several, one or no
macro time slots during the superframe" (emphasis added). Therefore,
Appellant has not demonstrated the "specification ... show[ s] that the
inventor actually invented the invention claimed." Ariad Pharms., 598 F.3d
at 1351.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 31--40
under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
Obviousness
On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 31.
4
Appeal2017-010297
Application 12/959,434
I
Appellant contends the cited references do not teach "an upcoming
macro time slot" and "a future macro timeslot," as recited in claim 1. See
Br. 13-17. In particular, Appellant argues Nakamura teaches "being
powered down during a current macro timeslot (i.e., superframe) and not a
future macro timeslot" and "controlling the devices within a single (i.e.,
current) macro time slot (i.e., superframe) and not a future (i.e., upcoming)
macro time slot." Br. 15-16 (emphasis omitted). As a result, Appellant
contends Nakamura does not teach
in response to a control packet indicating whether the WUSB
device is targeted for communication during an upcoming
macro time slot of a superframe ... powering down the WUSB
device during the upcoming macro time slot ... wherein the
upcoming macro time slot comprises a future macro timeslot,
as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See Br. 13-17.
Appellant has not persuaded us of error, as Appellant's arguments are
not directed to the Examiner's specific findings. The Examiner correctly
finds in Nakamura's Figure 3, a superframe includes a regular reception
section 1 and a mobile station alerting section 3. See Ans. 10-11;
Nakamura, Fig. 3. The Examiner cites the regular reception section 1 (a
portion of the superframe) for teaching the current macro timeslot, and the
mobile station alerting section 3 (another portion of the superframe) for
teaching the claimed "upcoming macro time slot." See Ans. 10-11. The
Examiner also correctly maps the "future macro timeslot" to region 7 of the
superframe. See Final Act. 8; Nakamura, Fig. 3.
II
5
Appeal2017-010297
Application 12/959,434
Appellant contends Nakamura does not teach "wherein the WUSB
device is adaptively assigned to several, one or no macro time slots during
the superframe," as recited in claim 1 (emphases added). See Br. 18. In
particular, Appellant argues "'adaptive assignment' requires at least two
assignment options," but "Nakamura discloses only one assignment option
(i.e., a one-to-one relationship) between the device (paging indication region
5) and the macro time slot (identification setting region 7)." Br. 18
(emphases omitted).
The Examiner correctly responds:
Nakamura discloses the mobile station is either assigned with
the identification information setting region 7 when the paging
indication region 5 is equal to "1 ", or the mobile station is not
assigned any identification information setting region 7 when
the paging indication region 5 is not "1" (col. 9, lines 27-57). In
other words, the mobile station is adaptively assigned with
either one time frame (macro timeslot) or no time frame during
the superframe.
Ans. 8.
Thus, contrary to Appellant's assertion, the Examiner has shown
Nakamura teaches two assignment options associated with the adaptive
assignment. As a result, Appellant's above argument is unpersuasive of
error.
III
Appellant generally asserts the cited references do not teach the
WUSB device is adaptively assigned to "a group consisting of several, one
or no macro time slots during the superframe," as recited in claim 1
(emphases added). See Br. 18.
6
Appeal2017-010297
Application 12/959,434
Appellant's argument is not commensurate with the scope of the
claim, as "a group consisting of' is not recited in claim 1. The limitation "a
group consisting of' was presented in an amendment, which was not
entered. See Advisory Act. (filed Sept. 15, 2016) 1; Ans. 2.
Because Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we
sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 31, and independent
claims 34 and 37 for similar reasons.
We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent
claims 32, 33, 35, 36, and 38--40, as Appellant does not advance separate
substantive arguments regarding those claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 31--40.
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
7