Ex Parte Kim et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 20, 2017

12578234 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 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.
12/578,234 10/13/2009 Sung Min KIM 1398-262 (YPF
200909-0033
5923
66547 7590 06/22/2017
THF FARRFT T T AWFTRM PC
EXAMINER
290 Broadhollow Road
Suite 210E
ESMAEILIAN, MAJID
Melville, NY 11747 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/22/2017 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):
pto @ farrelliplaw. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte SUNG MIN KIM, CHUL JIN KIM, EUN HWA LEE,
JUNG HYEON KIM, and JI HYE HUR
Appeal 2017-004619
Application 12/578,2341
Technology Center 2400
Before DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, JESSICA C. KAISER, and
JOSEPH P. LENTIVECH, Administrative Patent Judges.
KAISER, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Introduction
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from a Final Rejection of
claims 1—12. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Samsung Electronics
Co, Ltd. App. Br. 1.
Appeal 2017-004619
Application 12/578,234
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject
matter:
1. A channel allocation method in a wireless communication
environment where heterogeneous networks comprising a first
network and a second network coexist, comprising:
collecting, at an access point, information on a first set of
channels used by the first network and a second set of channels
used by the second network;
determining first available channels of the first network,
from the first set of channels, which are not shared with the
second network and determining second available channels of
the second network, from the second set of channels, which are
not shared with the first network based on the channel
information;
allocating one of the first available channels and one of the
second available channels to the access point; and
broadcasting the allocated channels of the first network
and the second network.
REJECTIONS
Claims 1—4 and 7—12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Bahl (US 2009/0034457 Al; published Feb. 5, 2009) and
802.15.4 (The Inst, of Elec, and Elec. Eng’rs, Inc., Part 15.4: Wireless
Medium Access Control (MAC) and Physical Layer (PHY) Specifications for
Low-Rate Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs) (2006)). Final Act.
10-20.
Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Zhu (US 2010/0027525 Al; published Feb. 4, 2010),
Bahl, and 802.15.4. Final Act. 20—25.
2
Appeal 2017-004619
Application 12/578,234
ISSUES
Issue 1: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bahl and
802.15.4 teaches
collecting, at an access point, information on a first set of
channels used by the first network and a second set of channels
used by the second network; determining first available channels
of the first network, from the first set of channels, which are not
shared with the second network and determining second
available channels of the second network, from the second set of
channels, which are not shared with the first network based on
the channel information; [and] allocating one of the first
available channels and one of the second available channels to
the access point,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 5?
Issue 2: Did the Examiner err in finding the combination of Bahl and
802.15.4 teaches “requesting the discovered access point to send channel
information on available channels of the second network which are not
shared with the first network; receiving the channel information from the
discovered access point,” as recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in claim
7?
ANALYSIS
We disagree with Appellants’ contentions and adopt as our own:
(1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from
which this appeal is taken (Final Act. 2—25); (2) the reasons set forth by the
Examiner in the Advisory Action (Adv. Act. 2); and (3) the reasons set forth
by the Examiner in the Answer in response to the Appeal Brief (Ans. 28—
42). With respect to the claims argued by Appellants, we highlight and
address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows.
3
Appeal 2017-004619
Application 12/578,234
Issue 1
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Bahl teaches
collecting, at an access point, information on a first set of
channels used by the first network and a second set of channels
used by the second network; determining first available channels
of the first network, from the first set of channels, which are not
shared with the second network and determining second
available channels of the second network, from the second set of
channels, which are not shared with the first network based on
the channel information; [and] allocating one of the first
available channels and one of the second available channels to
the access point,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim 5. App. Br. 4—7; Reply
Br. 1—3. Specifically, Appellants argue Bahl does not teach “that one of the
[Access Points] is collecting information on two sets of channels that are
used by two different networks” because Bahl’s “channels are not viewed as
being from two separate networks.” Reply Br. 2; App. Br. 5. Appellants
further argue, because Bahl does not teach two different networks, Bahl
“allocates] the channel frequency to the APs in the same network” rather
than “allocating] both one of the first available channels, which are not
shared with the second network, and one of the second available channels,
which are not shared with the first network.” Reply Br. 3; App. Br. 5.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Bahl
teaches “allocating a channel frequency profile to each [Access Point,] AP
110 and AP 112” (Ans. 28 (citing Bahl 121, Fig. 2)), where “each AP
constitutes a different wireless network” (Final Act. 3), i.e., AP 110 and AP
112 are distinct networks having their own corresponding channels. The
Examiner further finds, and we agree, “that channel frequency profile[s] can
be continuously or periodically changed” (id.) by “updating] center-
4
Appeal 2017-004619
Application 12/578,234
frequency and channel-width for each AP” (Bahl 111). The Examiner
further finds (Ans. 28—29; Final Act. 3, 11), and we agree, each AP’s
channel frequency profile is adjusted so that “each AP is not required to use
the same communication channel (i.e., each AP is not required to use the
same channel-width or the same center-channel)” (Bahl 132) and “using the
same (or overlapping) communication channel(s) is avoided” (Bahl 141).
Appellants’ argument that Bahl’s “AP[s] are all included in a single
network 102” so Bahl does not teach allocating “channels from different
networks to the same AP” (App. Br. 5 (emphasis omitted); Reply Br. 2—3) is
not persuasive. The claims do not preclude each AP from defining
respective networks. Moreover, Appellants’ Specification supports the
Examiner’s finding that “each AP constitutes a different wireless network.”
Final Act. 3. In particular, Appellants’ Specification teaches that “[e]ach
WLAN 100 is a wireless network composed of an Access Point (AP).”
Spec. 6:4—5, Fig. 1. Because AP 110 and AP 112 in Bahl are different
wireless networks, the channels respectively associated with AP 110 and AP
112 are channels associated with different networks.
Further, Bahl allocates respective network channels, which are not
shared between APs, to one AP. As the Examiner points out (Final Act. 11),
each respective AP is exclusively assigned channels by
“adjust[ing]/chang[ing] [the AP’s] existing center-frequency setting and/or
channel-width setting” to avoid “using the same (or overlapping)
communication channel(s)” as other APs (Bahl 141). For example, as
shown in Figure 3 of Bahl, AP 110’s network includes a channel which is
not shared by AP 112 — the channel between AP 110’s channel-width X in
Figure 3 and AP 110’s channel-width Y in Figure 4. As shown in Figure 4
5
Appeal 2017-004619
Application 12/578,234
of Bahl, AP 112’s network includes a corresponding channel which is not
shared by AP 110 — the channel between AP 112’s channel-width Z in
Figure 4 and AP 112 channel-width X in Figure 3. Those corresponding
unshared channels, i.e., the channel which AP 110 loses and the channel
which AP 112 gains, are allocated exclusively to AP 112. See Bahl 132
(“each AP is not required to use the same communication channel (i.e., each
AP is not required to use the same channel-width or the same center-
channel)”).
Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the
combination of Bahl and 802.15.4 teaches
collecting, at an access point, information on a first set of
channels used by the first network and a second set of channels
used by the second network; determining first available channels
of the first network, from the first set of channels, which are not
shared with the second network and determining second
available channels of the second network, from the second set of
channels, which are not shared with the first network based on
the channel information; [and] allocating one of the first
available channels and one of the second available channels to
the access point,
as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claim5.2
Issue 2
Appellants contend the Examiner erred in finding Bahl teaches
“requesting the discovered access point to send channel information on
2 We note that Appellants’ augments regarding claim 5 rely on the
arguments presented in claim 1 (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 3) and do not address
the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5 over the combination of Zhu, Bahl, and
802.15.4, finding Zhu teaches a WLAN network and a different WPAN
network (Final Act. 20 (citing Zhu 114, Fig. 2); Ans. 2).
6
Appeal 2017-004619
Application 12/578,234
available channels of the second network which are not shared with the first
network; receiving the channel information from the discovered access
point,” as recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in claim 7. App. Br. 6.
Specifically, Appellants argue “no support exists for the reception of channel
information on available channels of the second network, which are not
shared with the first network, at a coordinator of the second network, from
an AP of the first network.” Id.
We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Final Act. 14; Ans. 34),
and we agree, Bahl teaches “management modules can be implemented in a
distributed fashion, such as on one or more of the APs,” and management
can be “implemented on AP 110 and AP 112.” (Bahl 122). The Examiner
further finds, and we agree, “Bahl teaches that interference relationship [s]
between neighboring APs,” i.e., channel usage, “can be determined via
messaging.” Ans. 34 (citing Bahl 148) (emphasis omitted). The Examiner
finds that “AP2 . . . can receive allocated channel profile[s] from API ... as
determined by API by collecting information about the second network.”
Ans. 34.
Appellants’ argument that “no support exists” for the Examiner’s
rejection (App. Br. 6) is without elaboration and is not persuasive. The
Examiner’s determination that access points can receive information
regarding channels that are not shared (Ans. 34) is reasonably supported by
Bahl’s teachings that the management of channels is collectively performed
by distributed APs (Bahl 122) and that APs share information supporting
the management of channels by the APs (Bahl 148). Accordingly, we are
not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Bahl and
802.15.4 teaches “requesting the discovered access point to send channel
7
Appeal 2017-004619
Application 12/578,234
information on available channels of the second network which are not
shared with the first network; receiving the channel information from the
discovered access point,” as recited in claim 3 and similarly recited in
claim 7.
Remaining Claims 2, 4, 6, and 8—12
Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2,
4, 6, and 8—12, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 3, 5, and
7. App. Br. 6—7. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain
the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2, 4, 6, and 8—12.
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—4 and 7—12 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Bahl and 802.15.4 is affirmed.
The Examiner’s rejection of claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Zhu, Bahl, and 802.15.4 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8