Ex Parte Kish

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 29, 2014

11413293 (P.T.A.B. May. 29, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte WILLIAM KISH ____________ Appeal 2012-002968 Application 11/413,293 Technology Center 2600 ____________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JEFFREY S. SMITH, and MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2012-002968 Application 11/413,293 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1-11, 24, and 25, which are all the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. Representative Claim 1. An access point for enhanced coverage of a wireless local area network, the access point comprising: an antenna apparatus that provides a plurality of directional antenna patterns for communication over the wireless local area network; and a processor that executes software stored in memory, wherein execution of the software by the processor: determines a first of the plurality of directional antenna patterns, effectuates transmission of a first broadcast communication over the wireless local area network on the first of the plurality of directional antenna patterns in accordance with a communications protocol, the communications protocol having a periodic broadcast interval used to enable association of a station with the access point, determines a second of the plurality of directional antenna patterns, and effectuates transmission of a second broadcast communication over the wireless local area network on the second of the plurality of directional antenna patterns in accordance with the communications protocol, and the transmission of the second broadcast communication is offset from the transmission of the first broadcast communication by a time interval less than the periodic broadcast interval. Appeal 2012-002968 Application 11/413,293 3 Prior Art Simpson US 2005/0128988 Al Jun. 16, 2005 Iacono US 7,206,610 B2 Apr. 17, 2007 Vaisanen US 7,333,460 B2 Feb. 19, 2008 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1-9, 11, 24, and 25 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iacono and Vaisanen. Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iacono, Vaisanen, and Simpson. ANALYSIS Claim 1 recites “transmission of the second broadcast communication is offset from the transmission of the first broadcast communication by a time interval less than the periodic broadcast interval.” The Examiner finds changing a beacon interval as taught by Vaisanen teaches offsetting transmission of the second broadcast communication from the first broadcast communication by a time interval less than the periodic interval. Ans. 5, 9-10. Appellant contends Figure 5A of Appellant’s Specification shows an example of an offset by a time interval less than the periodic interval. Reply Br. 3-4. Figure 5A shows the start of periodic interval 510 of access point 440B is offset from the corresponding start for access point 440A by a time interval 520 less than the time of periodic interval 510. In contrast, Vaisanen in Figure 2A shows the start of the second “a” signal is offset from the start of the first “a” signal by a time equal to the periodic interval. Similarly, Figures 2B and 2C show a second signal offset from the first signal by a time interval equal to the periodic interval of the signals. Appeal 2012-002968 Application 11/413,293 4 Although the scope of “offset . . . by a time interval less than the periodic broadcast interval” encompasses a time interval of zero,1 the Examiner has not persuasively explained how the combination of Iacono and Vaisanen teaches “transmission of the second broadcast communication is offset from the transmission of the first broadcast communication by a time interval less than the periodic broadcast interval” as recited in claim 1. Independent claim 6 contains a limitation similar to that recited in claim 1 for which the rejection fails. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 1-11, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. DECISION The rejection of claims 1-9, 11, 24, and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iacono and Vaisanen is reversed. The rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Iacono, Vaisanen, and Simpson is reversed. REVERSED msc 1 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider whether the claimed offset encompasses the teaching of Figure 4B of U.S. Patent Publication 2004/0171407 to Ninomiya, which shows simultaneously broadcasting odd numbered sector communications, such that the “offset” of the sector 3 communication from the sector 1 communication is zero, or “a time interval less than the periodic broadcast interval.”