Ex Parte Hu

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMar 11, 2016

13223070 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 11, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/223,070 08/31/2011 30424 7590 03/15/2016 ADDMG - ST (first filed US/ Asia) 255 S. Orange A venue, Suite 1401 Orlando, FL 32801 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR WendongHu 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. 05-S-071US02 (5200027) 6609 EXAMINER HARPER, KEVIN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2462 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 03/15/2016 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): creganoa@addmg.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte WENDONG HU Appeal2014-005425 Application 13/223,070 Technology Center 2400 Before JEAN R. HOMERE, JASON V. MORGAN, and JOHN R. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judges. KENNY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the final rejection of claims 1-20. (App. Br. 4.) We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. INVENTION Appellants' disclosed invention relates to cognitive radio-based wireless communications of dynamic spectrum access networks, and, more particularly, to a method of addressing radio frequency sensing control and Appeal2014-005425 Application 13/223,070 dynamic frequency selection control. (Spec. 2.) Claim 1, which is representative, reads as follows: 1. A method of performing DFH [dynamic frequency hopping] operations of a DYSP AN [dynamic spectrum access networks] system during a cognitive DFH operation period comprising: using a base station to schedule a system including the base station and associated customer devices to hop to a selected working channel based on a frequency selection decision made at the end of a previous operation period; the base station and all customer devices in the system perform data transmissions on the selected working channel; the base station performs and schedules all customer devices to perform RF [radio frequency] sensing on channels other than the working channel in operation spectrum, with guard bands separating the working channel and the channels being sensed and additional unselected channels simultaneously with the data transmissions; the customer devices report sensing measurement results to the base station; the base station processes sensing measurement reports; the base station announces the frequency selection decision to be used for the next operation period to the customer devices in the system and to all neighboring systems; and repeating the method for the next DFH operation period. 2 Appeal2014-005425 Application 13/223,070 REFERENCES The Examiner relies on the following prior art references in rejecting the claims on appeal: Gao (et al.) US 2009/0067354 Al Mar. 12, 2009 Liu (et al.) US 2009/0161774 Al June 25, 2009 REJECTION Claims 1-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Gao in view of Liu. (Final Act. 2.) ISSUE Did the Examiner err in combining Gao and Liu? ANALYSIS We agree with, and adopt as our own, the Examiner's findings of facts and conclusions as set forth in the Answer and in the action from which this appeal is taken. We have considered Appellants' arguments, but do not find them persuasive of error. We provide the following discussion primarily for emphasis. The Examiner combines Gao' s teachings regarding selecting and communicating on an available frequency with Liu's teachings regarding sensing reports. (Final Act. 2-3; Ans. 2-3.) Appellants argue that an ordinarily skilled artisan would not have made that combination because Gao provides DPS (dynamic frequency selection) announcements that would render Liu's sensing reports superfluous. (Br. 4---6.) Appellants further 3 Appeal2014-005425 Application 13/223,070 argue that adding Liu's reports to Gao's DPS-announcement-based method would change Gao's principle of operation. (Id.) We are not persuaded by these arguments because they do not address the basis of the Examiner's rejection. Gao discloses two methods-of-interest for this opinion. First, Gao Figure 5 illustrates a method that provides DPS announcements. (Ans. 2; Gao Fig. 5, i-f 90.) Gao labels this method as prior art. (Gao Fig. 5.) In this method, when a base station switches to a new channel of operation, the base station must provide a DPS announcement to other base stations to avoid collisions. (Gao i-f 90.) Second, Gao Figure 7 illustrates a method that "avoids collisions without the need to transmit or receive DPS announcements." (Gao Fig. 7, i-f 117.) The Examiner combines the method of Gao Figure 7 with Liu's teachings to reject claim 1. (Ans. 2-3.) Because the method of Gao Figure 7 does not transmit or receive DPS announcements, Appellants' arguments regarding whether an ordinary skilled artisan would combine a DFS- announcement-based method with Liu's teachings do not persuade us of reversible Examiner error. (Ans. 2-3; Gao i-f 117.) In the Final Action, the Examiner cites the method of Gao Figure 5 as providing a suggestion for modifying the method of Gao Figure 7 to provide announcements from a base station to customer devices as recited in claim 1. (Final Act. 2-3.) The Final Action and Answer make clear that the only reason the Examiner cites the method of Gao Figure 5 is for that suggestion, and the Examiner does not rely upon that method's sending of DPS announcements between base stations to satisfy any claim element. Specifically, the Final Action indicates that the embodiment that the 4 Appeal2014-005425 Application 13/223,070 Examiner relies upon in Gao "does not disclose ... announcing the selected frequency to customer devices and to neighboring systems." (Final Act. 3.) The Final Action further describes the method of Gao Figure 5 as an "alternate embodiment" to the embodiment the Examiner relies upon. (Id.) The Final Action also cites disclosures in Gao from the Figure 7 method as satisfying limitations of claim 1. (Final Act. 2, citing Fig. 7, steps 702 and 7 07.) The Answer further clarifies that the embodiment that the Examiner relies upon in Gao to combine with Liu's teachings is the method of Gao Figure 7. (Ans. 2-3.) Appellants have not provided persuasive evidence or arguments demonstrating that the Examiner committed reversible error by combining the embodiment of Gao Figure 7 with Liu. (Br. 4---6.) Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claim 1 and of claims 2-20, not separately argued. DECISION The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1-20 is affirmed. 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