Ex Parte Kowalski

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 3, 2012

11893578 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARKOFFICE 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. 11/893,578 08/15/2007 John Kowalski SLA1159.1 8555 55286 7590 12/04/2012 SHARP LABORATORIES OF AMERICA, INC. C/O LAW OFFICE OF GERALD MALISZEWSKI P.O. BOX 270829 SAN DIEGO, CA 92198-2829 EXAMINER GREY, CHRISTOPHER P ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2413 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/04/2012 PAPER 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. PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte JOHN KOWALSKI ____________ Appeal 2009-014185 Application 11/893,578 Technology Center 2400 ____________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, KRISTEN L. DROESCH and TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges. DROESCH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2009-014185 Application 11/893,578 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final rejection of claims 1-17 and 23-41.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We reverse. BACKGROUND Appellant’s disclosed invention relates to a system and method for establishing and/or maintaining a hybrid coordinator (HC) for an IEEE 802.11 wireless local area network (LAN). Spec. 1. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below (disputed limitation in italics): 1. A method for maintaining a hybrid coordinator (HC) in an IEEE 802.11 wireless communications local area network (LAN), the method comprising: a first IEEE 802.11 station (STA) seeking a guaranteed quality of service (QoS); establishing a first IEEE 802.11 basic service set (BSS) through association with a first IEEE 802.11 access point (AP) with a first set of responsibilities including network arbitration functions; the first AP selecting a first IEEE 802.11 HC, with a second set of responsibilities, different from the first set, including managing QoS information streams from IEEE 802.11 STAs in the first BSS; the first AP broadcasting the first HC information to STAs in the first BSS; and, the first STA initiating an IEEE 802.11 transmission specification (TSPEC) with the first HC. 1 Claims 18-22 have been cancelled. Appeal 2009-014185 Application 11/893,578 3 Rejections The claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as follows: claims 1-3 and 13 over Olkkonen (US 6,842,460 B1) and Tehrani (US 6,961,545 B2); claims 4 and 5 over Olkkonen, Tehrani and Cansever (U.S. 6,678,252 B1); claims 6-9 over Olkkonen, Tehrani, Cansever and Hattori (U.S. 2005/0149580 A1); claim 10 over Olkkonen, Tehrani and Ma (U.S. 6,856,591 B1); claims 11 and 12 over Olkkonen, Tehrani, Cansever, Hattori and Holt (U.S. 2004/0148348 A1); claim 14 over Olkkonen, Tehrani and Parmar (EP 1235457 A1); claim 15 over Olkkonen, Tehrani, Parmar and Hulyalkar (U.S. 7,110,366 B2); claims 16 and 17 over Olkkonen, Tehrani, Parmar, Hulyalkar and Holt; claims 23-27 and 36 over Olkkonen and Cansever; claims 28-31 over Olkkonen, Cansever, Hattori and the known prior art; claims 32 and 33 over Olkkonen, Cansever and Ma; claims 34 and 35 over Olkkonen, Cansever, Hattori, the known prior art and Holt; claims 37 and 38 over Olkkonen, Cansever and Parmar; claim 39 over Olkkonen, Cansever and Hulyalkar; and claims 40 and 41 over Olkkonen, Cansever, Hulyalkar and Holt. Appeal 2009-014185 Application 11/893,578 4 ISSUE Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Olkkonen and Tehrani teaches or suggests “a first IEEE 802.11 HC” (hybrid coordinator), as recited in independent claim 1? ANALYSIS We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejection in light of Appellant’s arguments in the Appeal Brief presented in response to the Final Office Action and the Reply Brief presented in response to the Examiner’s Answer. We agree with Appellant’s conclusions. We highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellant argues that neither Olkkonen nor Tehrani disclose an IEEE 802.11 HC (hybrid coordinator) or a station that performs the function of an IEEE 802.11 HC. App. Br. 8-9, 11-12; Reply Br. 2-3. Appellant further argues that the claims are intended to cover only an IEEE 802.11 system using a hybrid coordinator and address modifications to the functions of a conventional HC. Reply Br. 3. The Examiner does not rely on Tehrani for describing the claimed IEEE 802.11 HC (hybrid coordinator), but instead finds that Olkkonen’s IEEE 802.11 ad hoc information provider device 106(I) (INFO PROV) describes the claimed IEEE 802.11 HC. Ans. 3-5 (citing Fig. 7, col. 37, ll. 7- 27, 36-44; col. 38, ll. 5-10). The Examiner further explains that when the 802.11 HC is interpreted in its broadest sense, Olkkonen’s info provider 106 is equivalent to an 802.11 HC because the claim does not define the functions or structure of an 802.11 HC other than having a set of responsibilities including managing QoS information. Ans. 34-35. Appeal 2009-014185 Application 11/893,578 5 We agree with Appellant’s arguments that Olkkonen does not describe or suggest an IEEE 802.11 HC (hybrid coordinator). The Examiner’s interpretation of an IEEE 802.11 HC is overly broad. “Although the PTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation, this interpretation must be consistent with the one that those skilled in the art would reach.” In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 1999). According to Appellant’s Specification, the IEEE 802.11 TGe committee proposes a Hybrid Coordination Function (HCF) that provides contention- free and controlled-contention transfers during any part of a frame (a Contention-Free Period (CFP) or Contention Period (CP)) by allowing a Hybrid Coordinator (HC) to generate bursts of CFPs. Spec. 4:24-6:5; see also Spec. 7:16-17. Appellant’s Specification also discloses that US 2002/0071449 A1 by Ho et al. describes that a station may transmit by contention-free communications started and controlled by a HC or alternatively may transmit by contention communication coordinated by the HC. Spec. 6:6-7:2. In light of the discussion in Appellant’s Specification of IEEE 802.11 Hybrid Coordinators as they are known in the art, one with ordinary skill in the art would not construe Olkkonen’s ad hoc network information provider 106(I) to be a IEEE 802.11 Hybrid Coordinator. The Examiner does not direct us to any description in Olkkonen related to the ad hoc network information provider 106(I) controlling and/or coordinating contention-free communications and/or contention communications. For at least this reason, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of claims 1-3 and 13 over Olkkonen and Tehrani. Appeal 2009-014185 Application 11/893,578 6 As applied by the Examiner (Ans. 17-20), Cansever does not remedy the aforementioned deficiencies of Olkkonen. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 23 and dependent claims 24-27 and 36 over Olkkonen and Cansever. Furthermore, as applied by the Examiner, the remaining Hattori, Ma, Holt, Parmar, Huyalkar and “the known prior art” references do not remedy the deficiencies of Olkkonen. Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejections of dependent claims 4-12, 14-17, 28-35 and 37-41 over the various combinations of applied prior art. DECISION We reverse the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1-17 and 23-41 over the applied prior art. REVERSED gvw