Ex Parte Lelkens et al

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardJan 15, 2019

13319769 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jan. 15, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 13/319,769 11/10/2011 138325 7590 01/17/2019 PHILIPS LIGHTING HOLDING B.V. 465 Columbus A venue Suite 330 Valhalla, NY 10595 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR Armand Michel Marie Lelkens 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. 2009P00963WOUS 8791 EXAMINER MURRAY, DANIEL C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2443 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 01/17/2019 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): kim. larocca@signify.com jo.cangelosi@signify.com Gigi.MillerÂ© signify. com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ARMAND MICHEL MARIE LELKENS and BOZENA ERDMANN Appeal2018-005993 Application 13/319, 7 69 1 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHNNY A. KUMAR, CATHERINE SHIANG, and JASON J. CHUNG, Administrative Patent Judges. SHIANG, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7-11, 13, and 16-21, which are all the claims pending and rejected in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify Philips Lighting Holding B.V. as the real party in interest. Br. 2. Appeal2018-005993 Application 13/319,769 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Introduction According to the Specification, the present invention relates to "a method for communicating in a network, comprising a plurality of nodes, and such nodes. This invention is more especially related to ad hoc networks and that may comprise a plurality of sub-networks interconnected to each other by a backbone." Spec. 1. Claim 1 is exemplary: 1. A method for assigning a network address to a first node in a network comprising a plurality of second nodes having respective network address, the network being subdivided in a plurality of sub- networks interconnected by at least one backbone, wherein each sub- network is coupled to the at least one backbone by at least one dedicated control device, wherein the first node and a first dedicated control device belong to a first sub-network, the method comprising: assigning a stochastic address to the first node, transmitting, by the first node, an announcement message to the first dedicated control device, checking, by the first dedicated control device, a control device list to determine whether the assigned stochastic network address for the first node is available, wherein the control device list includes a list of network addresses currently in use, and wherein when the assigned stochastic network address is not in the control device list, submitting the assigned stochastic network address to at least a second dedicated control device connected to the at least one backbone, and upon detecting that the assigned stochastic address is not available, transmitting, by the first dedicated control device, to the first node, a message requesting a change of the assigned address for the first node. 2 Appeal2018-005993 Application 13/319,769 References and Re} ections2 Claims 1--4, 7-10, 13, and 17-21 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over ZigBee ("ZigBee Specification Document 053474rl 7'' 2007 ZigBee Standards Organization (January 17, 2008)) and Fang (US 2009/0141726 Al; June 4, 2009). Final Act. 6-17. Claim 11 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over ZigBee, Fang, and Dinakaran (US 2009/0006596 Al; January 1, 2009). Final Act. 17-18. Claim 16 stands rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over ZigBee, Fang, and Smith (US 2009/0094349 Al; April 9, 2009). Final Act. 19-20. 3 ANALYSIS We disagree with Appellants' arguments, and agree with and adopt the Examiner's findings and conclusions in (i) the action from which this appeal is taken and (ii) the Answer to the extent they are consistent with our analysis below. Obviousness On this record, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claim 1. Appellants contend ZigBee does not teach "transmitting, by the first node, an announcement message to the first dedicated control device, 2 Throughout this opinion, we refer to the (1) Final Rejection dated September 15, 2016 ("Final Act."); (2) Appeal Brief dated October 18, 2017 ("Br."); and (3) Examiner's Answer dated February 9, 2018("Ans."). 3 The Examiner withdrew a written description rejection. Ans. 18. 3 Appeal2018-005993 Application 13/319,769 checking, by the first dedicated control device, a control device list to determine whether the assigned stochastic network address for the first node is available, wherein the control device list includes a list of network addresses currently in use," as recited in claim 1 ( emphasis added). See Br. 6-11. In particular, Appellants assert "ZigBee Specification teaches stochastic address assignment by announcing addresses to all devices in the network and requesting the first node to pick a new address if there is a conflict with the previously assigned address" and "ZigBee coordinator and/or Router does not include a list of network addresses currently in use." Br. 8, 10; see also Br. 7-9, 11. Appellants have not persuaded us of error. The Examiner finds: ZigBee clearly discloses transmitting, by the first node (ZigBee End Device, joining device, child, etc.), an announcement message (device_annce) to the first dedicated control device (ZigBee Coordinator, parent, etc.)(ZigBee; page 228 lines 18- 28, page 373 lines 31-36, page 374 lines 17-18). ZigBee clearly discloses checking, by the first dedicated control device (ZigBee Coordinator, parent, etc.), a control device list (internal tables, network address map, neighbor tables, etc.) to determine whether the assigned stochastic network address for the first node (ZigBee End Device, joining device, child, etc.) is available (ZigBee; page 228 lines 18-28, page 374 lines 39-42, page 375 lines 1-22). Ans. 22-23. wherein the control device list (internal tables, network address map, neighbor tables, etc.) includes a list of network addresses currently in use, and wherein when the assigned stochastic network address is not in the control device list (internal tables, network address map, neighbor tables, etc.), submitting the assigned stochastic network address to at least a second dedicated control device (ZigBee Coordinator, parent, 4 Appeal2018-005993 Application 13/319,769 etc.)(ZigBee; page 228 lines 18-28, page 374 lines 39-42, page 375 lines 1-6) .... Final Act. 6. Appellants do not critique the Examiner's specific findings, and ignore the excerpts of ZigBee's page 228 cited by the Examiner. As a result, Appellants fail to show Examiner error. See In re Baxter Travenol Labs., 952 F.2d 388, 391 (Fed. Cir. 1991) ("It is not the function of this court [or this Board] to examine the claims in greater detail than argued by an appellant, looking for [patentable] distinctions over the prior art."). Further, Appellants' assertion that "ZigBee specification ... does not disclose first checking for address conflicts in the dedicated control device of the new node itself and checking for address conflicts in other dedicated control device if the first search does not reveal any address conflicts" (Br. 7) is unpersuasive, because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1. To the extent Appellants are separately arguing additional limitations of claim 1, their general assertion does not critique the Examiner's specific findings and is unpersuasive of error. Because Appellants have not persuaded us the Examiner erred, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 1, and independent claims 13 and 1 7 for similar reasons. We also sustain the Examiner's rejection of corresponding dependent claims 2--4, 7-11, 16, and 18-21, as Appellants do not advance separate substantive arguments about those claims. DECISION We affirm the Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 7-11, 13, and 16-21. 5 Appeal2018-005993 Application 13/319,769 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. Â§ 1.136(a)(l)(iv). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 6