Ex Parte Kim et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 20, 201712578234 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 20, 2017) 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. 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 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation