Ex Parte Kwan et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 22, 2016

13735002 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 22, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO.
131735,002
105903 7590
CRGOLAW
7900 Glades Road
Suite 520
FILING DATE
01/06/2013
11/25/2016
Baca Raton, FL 33434
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hung Tack Kwan
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.
CHA920120018US1 (003) 7646
EXAMINER
BUTT, W ALLI Z
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2412
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/25/2016 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):
docketing@crgolaw.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte HUNG TACK KWAN and SHIJU MATHAI
Appeal2015-008188
Application 13/735,002
Technology Center 2400
Before MAHSHID D. SAADAT, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
JON M. JURGOV AN, Administrative Patent Judges.
JURGOVAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 1 seek review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final
Rejection of claims 1-15. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We affirm.2
1 Appellants identify International Business Machines Corporation as the
real party in interest. (App. Br. 2.)
2 Our Decision refers to the Specification filed Jan. 6, 2013 ("Spec."), the
Final Office Action mailed Nov. 28, 2014 ("Final Act."), the Appeal Brief
filed May 4, 2015 ("App. Br."), the Examiner's Answer mailed July 16,
2015 ("Ans."), and the Reply Brief filed Sept. 16, 2015 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2015-008188
Application 13/735,002
CLAHvIED TI'-JVENTION
The claims are directed to real-time, analytics-driven decisioning of
edge devices in a wireless sensor network. (Spec. Title.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A method for real-time analytics driven decisioning of
edge devices in a wireless sensor network (WSN);
establishing a communicative connection by a controller
with a plurality of sensors in a geographically proximate WSN;
aggregating data received from the sensors;
triggering an action in the controller based upon the
aggregated data; and
propagating the aggregated data to a different controller
communicatively coupled to other sensors of a different WSN
geographically proximate to the different controller.
(App. Br. 12, Claims App'x.)
REJECTIONS
Claims 11-15 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as directed to non-
statutory subject matter.3 (Final Act. 5---6.)
3 The Examiner has withdrawn the 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection of claims 11-
15. (Ans. 2.) However, Appellants' Specification does not explicitly define
"computer readable storage medium" to exclude transitory media. (See
Spec. i-fi-125-26.) Consequently, claims 11-15 encompass transitory media,
which is not patent eligible. (See Ex parte Mewherter, 107 USPQ2d 1857
(PTAB 2013) (precedential).) In the event of further prosecution, we leave
it to the Examiner to consider whether the rejection of claims 11----15 under
35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter should be
maintained, unless the claims are restricted to "non-transitory" media.
Although the Board is authorized to reject claims under 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(b), no inference should be drawn when the Board elects not to do so.
(See Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1213.02 (9th Ed.,
Rev. 07.2015, Nov. 2015).)
2
Appeal2015-008188
Application 13/735,002
Claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(a) based on Li et al. (US 2012/0300632 Al; publ. Nov. 29, 2012).
(Final Act. 6-13.)
Claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
based on Li and Eberlein et al. (US 2014/0012799 Al; publ. Jan. 9, 2014).
(Final Act. 14--20.)
ANALYSIS
Independent Claims 1, 6, and 11
Appellants contend Li does not describe propagating data from one
evolved Node B ("eNB") to another eNB, but, rather, the eNB acts as a data
collector "'sink'" that receives data from the local sensor network, not
another eNB. (App. Br. 6-10; Reply Br. 2---6). Thus, Appellants argue, Li
fails to disclose the controller propagating data to another, different
controller as claimed. (Id.)
The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Li discloses the claimed
method steps of establishing a communicative connection by a controller
(i.e., Li, Fig. 3, cluster head 15 having controller 81) with a plurality of
networked sensors (i.e., beacon cluster BC-I), and the cluster head controller
propagating aggregated sensor data to another, different controller (i.e., eNB
sink 50 having controller 51) communicatively coupled to other sensors of a
different network ( eNB 50 is connected to network BC-II and BC-III).
(Ans. 6-15 (citing Li i-fi-182-85 and Figs. 3c, 5, and 6).) Although
Appellants' Specification provides an example of one controller (e.g., 300)
propagating data to another controller of the same type (e.g., another
controller 300 on the network (see Spec. i-fi-120-21 and Fig. 2)), we find the
3
Appeal2015-008188
Application 13/735,002
Examiner's broadest reasonable interpretation of propagating data from one
type of "controller[]" (i.e., Li's cluster head 15) to another, different type of
"controller[]" (i.e., Li's eNB 50) is consistent with Appellants'
Specification, which also discloses a controller (300) can propagate data to a
different type of controller in back-end data server (280 (Spec i-fi-1 20-21) ).
(See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech. Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1369 (Fed. Cir.
2004): "[T]he PTO is obligated to give claims their broadest reasonable
interpretation during examination.")
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent
claims 1, 6, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a) as anticipated by Li.
Remaining Claims
No separate arguments are presented for remaining dependent claims
2-5, 7-10, and 12-15. (See App. Br. 6 and 11.) Thus, for the reasons stated
with respect to independent claims 1, 6, and 11, we sustain the Examiner's
rejection of the dependent claims. (See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv); In re
King, 801 F.2d 1324, 1325 (Fed. Cir. 1986); In re Sernaker, 702 F.2d 989,
991 (Fed. Cir. 1983).)
DECISION
We affirm the rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, and 14 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(a), and the rejection of claims 2, 5, 7, 10, 12, and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
4
Appeal2015-008188
Application 13/735,002
AFFIRivIED
5