Ex Parte Liang et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardMay 23, 2018

14341366 (P.T.A.B. May. 23, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/341,366 07/25/2014 23494 7590 05/25/2018 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED P 0 BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ROBERT LIANG 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. TI-74116 9666 EXAMINER MCCOY, RICHARD ANTHONY ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2431 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/25/2018 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte ROBERT LIANG and KUMARAN VIJAYASANKAR Appeal2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 Technology Center 2400 Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, BRUCE R. WINSOR, and JUSTIN BUSCH, Administrative Patent Judges. JEFFERY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a), Appellants 1 appeal from the Examiner's decision to reject claims 1-25, which constitute all the claims pending in this application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We affirm. 1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Texas Instruments Incorporated. App. Br. 2. Texas Instruments Incorporated is the Applicant for the instant patent application. See Bib. Data Sheet. Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention connects a service node (SN) to data concentrators (DCs) in a multiple Personal Area Network (multi-PAN). See generally Abstract. Claims 1 and 15, reproduced below, are illustrative: 1. A method of network joining, comprising: a first service node (SN) of a plurality of SN s having primary metering units in a multi-Personal Area Network (multi-PAN) including a plurality of data concentrators (DCs) communicatively coupled to the first service node, that communicate with at least one server over a common communications medium configuring a beacon request frame (BRF), said first SN transmitting said BRF over said common medium; responsive to receiving said BRF, said first DC processing said BRF, and said first DC transmitting a beacon frame over said common communications medium, wherein others of said plurality of DCs communicatively coupled to the first service node do not transmit respective beacon frames. 15. A multi-Personal Area Network (PAN) system, compnsmg: a plurality of data concentrators (DCs) each including a DC modem including a DC processor that is coupled to a DC memory, said DC modem coupled to a DC transceiver configured to communicate with at least one utility server over a common communications medium; a plurality of service nodes (SN) each including a SN modem including a SN processor that is coupled to a SN memory, said SN modem coupled to a SN transceiver configured to communicate over said common communications medium, wherein said SN processor is communicably coupled to said SN memory which stores a target directed joining algorithm (joining algorithm) for said multi-PAN system including code for compiling a beacon request frame (BRF), 2 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 and wherein said SN processor is programmed to implement said joining algorithm, said joining algorithm: configures said BRF comprising a Media Access Control (MAC) header including a header information element (HIE) or a payload IE (PIE), and a MAC cyclic redundancy check (CRC) footer, said BRF including a unique address of a first of said plurality of DCs (first DC) or at least partial encryption of a data sequence (encrypted data sequence) with a key shared with said first DC (pre-shared key), and causing said first SN to transmit said BRF over said common communications medium; in responsive to [sic] receiving said BRF, configures said first DC for processing said BRF to identify said unique address or said first DC having said pre-shared key in said DC memory and applying said pre-shared key to decipher said BRF, and wherein said first DC is configured for transmitting a beacon frame over said common communications medium, and wherein others of said plurality of DCs are configured for not transmitting respective beacon frames. THE REJECTIONS 2 The Examiner rejected claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Ananthakrishnan et al. (US 2012/0182881 Al, published; July 19, 2012) and Oi et al. (US 2010/0075612 Al, published; Mar. 25, 2010). Final Act. 6-7. 3 2 Claims 1 and 9 had been rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ l 12(b) as indefinite. Final Act. 4. Because the Examiner withdrew the indefiniteness rejection of these claims (Adv. Act. 2), that rejection is not before us. 3 Throughout this opinion, we refer to (1) the Final Rejection mailed November 8, 2016 ("Final Act."); (2) the Advisory Action mailed March 2, 2017 ("Adv. Act."); (3) the Appeal Brief filed May 8, 2017 ("App. Br."); (4) 3 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 The Examiner rejected claims 2, 3, 5-12, 14--16, and 18-25 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Ananthakrishnan, Oi, and Bajic et al. (US 2012/0155349 Al, published; June 21, 2012). Final Act. 8-17. The Examiner rejected claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Ananthakrishnan, Oi, and Gehrmann et al. (US 2015/0195261 Al, published; July 9, 2015). Final Act. 18. The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103 as unpatentable over Ananthakrishnan, Oi, Bajic, and Gehrmann. Final Act. 18. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ANANTHAKRISHNAN AND OI The Examiner finds that Ananthakrishnan discloses many recited elements of independent claim 1 including, among other things, DCs communicatively coupled to a "first service node" (SN) (power line communication (PLC) device 113). Final Act. 6; Ans. 2. The Examiner also finds that Ananthakrishnan's full-function devices (FFDs) in a neighborhood of the SN, in response to receiving a beacon request frame (BRF), may reply with a beacon frame. Final Act. 6. The Examiner cites Oi for teaching that DCs other than the first DC do not transmit respective beacon frames. Id. at 6-7. Based on these collective teachings, the Examiner concludes that claim 1 would have been obvious. Appellants argue that the Examiner's reliance on Ananthakrishnan is misplaced because, among other things, Ananthakrishnan's DCs are not of a the Examiner's Answer mailed July 20, 2017 ("Ans."); and (5) the Reply Brief filed September 20, 2017 ("Reply Br."). 4 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 first SN, but rather of multiple PLC devices. App. Br. 7. Appellants add that Oi teaches away from DCs, other than the first DC, not transmitting respective beacon frames because Oi excludes any targeted request to a single device. Id. ISSUES (1) UnderÂ§ 103(a), has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 by finding that Ananthakrishnan and Oi collectively would have taught or suggested DCs communicatively coupled to a first SN? (2) Is the Examiner's proposed combination supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether Oi teaches away from communicatively coupling DCs, other than a first DC, to a first SN, where the other DCs do not transmit respective beacon frames. ANALYSIS We begin with claim construction. To this end, we give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification. See In re Am. Acad. of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim 1 recites, in pertinent part, a plurality of DCs "communicatively coupled" to a first SN. The term "coupled" is defined in the Specification as "intended to mean either an indirect or direct electrical connection, unless qualified as in 'communicably coupled' which includes wireless connections." Spec. i-f 5 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 21. We, therefore, construe the term "communicatively coupled" based on this definition. Given this definition, we see no error in the Examiner's mapping that Ananthakrishnan's DCs are "communicatively coupled" to a PLC device. Final Act. 6 (citing Ananthakrishnan i-fi-130-31, 34; Fig. 1 ). Ananthakrishnan's Figure 1 is illustrative and reproduced below: 101 FIG. 1 Ananthakrishnan's Figure 1 illustrating a PLC system Ananthakrishnan's DC 114 is coupled to a low voltage (LV) line 105. Ananthakrishnan i133. Ananthakrishnan's LV line 105 is, in tum, coupled to meters 106a-n at each residence 102a-n. Id. i-fi-1 31, 33. Figure 1 of Ananthakrishnan further illustrates that meter 106n of residence 102n is coupled to breaker panel 107, and breaker panel 107 is, in tum, coupled to PLC device 113 via electrical wires 108. Id. i130. Thus, Figure 1 of Ananthakrishnan illustrates an indirect electrical connection between DC 6 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 114 and PLC device 113 of residence 102n. Therefore, Ananthakrishnan teaches DC 114 is communicatively coupled to PLC device 113. Ananthakrishnan further discloses control center 130 collects power consumption from PLC devices 113 through one or more DCs 114. Id. i-f 34. Thus, Ananthakrishnan at least suggests that multiple DCs, namely multiple DCs 114, are communicatively coupled to PLC device 113. Appellants' contention that Ananthakrishnan' s DCs are not of a first SN, but rather of multiple PLC devices (App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2), is unavailing, for the claim recites no such requirement that multiple DCs are communicatively coupled to only one first SN. Nor does Appellants' Specification require communicatively coupling multiple DCs to only one first SN. As shown in Appellants' Figure 4, Appellants' service nodes SNl and SNS are each communicatively coupled to the same set of DCs, namely DC 1 and DC2. Thus, such arguments are not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which does not preclude multiple DCs coupled to multiple PLC devices, such as that used in Ananthakrishnan' s PLC system illustrated in Figure 1. Nor do we find availing Appellants' contention that Oi teaches away from the limitations of claim 1 because Oi's devices receive a message and transmit a reply. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. As noted previously, the Examiner's obviousness rejection relies principally on Ananthakrishnan for teaching many of the recited elements of claim 1, and cites Oi for a very limited purpose. See Final Act. 4--7. In particular, the Examiner finds Ananthakrishnan at least suggests DCs (FFDs) not transmitting respective beacon frames upon receiving a same BRF. Id. at 6 (citing Ananthakrishnan i-f 46); see also id. at 12 (additionally finding that FFDs are DCs). According 7 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 to the Examiner, paragraph 46 of Ananthakrishnan discloses that DCs in the neighborhood may reply by sending a beacon frame which, as the Examiner explains, indicates that DCs not in the neighborhood will not reply. Final Act. 6. These findings are not persuasively rebutted. Ananthakrishnan's FFDs comprise Low power Wireless Personal Area Network (Lo WP AN) bootstrapping devices (LBDs ), Lo WP AN bootstrapping agents (LBAs), and a Lo WP AN bootstrapping server (LBS). Ananthakrishnan i-fi-140-49; Figs. 5---6. Ananthakrishnan's LBD, a new PLC device, sends a I-hop broadcast "Beacon.request" frame. Id. i1 46. Ananthakrishnan's FFDs in the neighborhood of the new PLC device may reply by sending a beacon frame. Id. Ananthakrishnan, then, at least suggests that FFDs, whether in the neighborhood or not, may not reply to the new PLC device's Beacon.request frame. Ananthakrishnan's FFDs include DCs. Id. i-fi-141--42, 44--45. Thus, Ananthakrishnan at least suggests other FFDs, including DCs, that are communicatively coupled to the new PLC device do not transmit respective beacon frames. As such, we see no error in the Examiner's combining Oi with Ananthakrishnan to arrive at the claimed invention. Final Act. 7; Ans. 3. Oi teaches whether a probe response is transmitted depends on whether a received probe request meets specific requirements. Oi i127; Fig. 4. As shown in steps 550 to 580 of Oi's Figure 5, for example, a reply is transmitted only if the measured values for received power or signal-to-noise ratio are greater than certain values. See Oi i-fi-128-30. We disagree with Appellants that Oi discourages having other DCS communicatively coupled to a first SN transmit respective beacon frames, such as those disclosed by Ananthakrishnan. On the contrary, Oi actually 8 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 encourages reducing the potential number of responses, particularly those with weaker signals. See id. i-f 27. That is, according to Oi, reducing the potential number of responses reduces the overburdening of traffic volume in a network. See id. i-f 1. As such, we see no reason why Oi' s specific requirements to limit the potential number of responses could not be combined with Ananthakrishnan's teachings as noted above. That Ananthakrishnan's PLCs located outside of a given neighborhood (see Final Act. 6) could conceivably have a lower received signal strength as compared to those inside the neighborhood due to their greater distance from the receiver only further underscores the reasonableness of the Examiner's proposed combination. Accordingly, we do not find that Oi teaches away from the combination because skilled artisans would not be discouraged from following the path set out in the references, or led in a direction divergent from the path that was taken by Appellants. See In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 990 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Lastly, Appellants' contention that the Examiner improperly introduced a new ground of rejection in the Answer (Reply Br. 3, 5) is a petitionable-not appealable-matter that is decided before a Reply Brief is filed and, therefore, is not before us. See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.40(a); see also MPEP Â§ 1201 ("The Board will not ordinarily hear a question that should be decided on petition .... "). Where, as here, no such petition is filed, Appellants' arguments in the Reply Brief regarding the allegedly improper new ground of rejection are deemed to be waived as untimely. See id.; see also MPEP Â§ 1207.03(b). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. 9 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OVER ANANTHAKRISHNAN, OI, ANDBAJIC Claims 2, 3, and 5---8 We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 2, 3, and 5-8 over Ananthakrishnan, Oi, and Bajic. Final Act. 8. Appellants' arguments regarding Ananthakrishnan's alleged shortcomings regarding the limitations of independent claim 1 from which claims 2, 3, and 5-8 depend (App. Br. 6- 8; Reply Br. 2-5) are unavailing for the reasons previously discussed. Therefore, we are not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 2, 3, and 5-8. Claims 9-12 and 14 We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9. Final Act. 9-11. Claim 9 recites, in pertinent part, DCs, other than the first DC, communicatively coupled to an SN are configured for not transmitting respective beacon frames. We find unavailing Appellants' contention that Oi teaches away from an SN' s other DCs not configured for transmitting respective beacon frames for the reasons previously discussed. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 9, and claims 10-12 and 14 not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 9. Claims 15, 16, and 18-20 The Examiner finds that Ananthakrishnan discloses many recited elements of independent claim 15 including, among other things, an SN processor programmed to implement a joining algorithm that causes a first 10 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 SN to transmit a BRF over a common communications medium. Final Act. 11. The Examiner further finds Ananthakrishnan discloses a first DC configured for transmitting a beacon frame over the common communications medium. Id. at 12. The Examiner also acknowledges that Ananthakrishnan's joining algorithm does not configure (a) a BRF to include at least partial encryption of a data sequence (encrypted data sequence) with a key shared with the first DC (pre-shared key); and (b) the first DC, responsive to receiving the BRF, to process the BRF and identify the first DC having the pre-shared key in DC memory and applying the pre-shared key to decipher the BRF. Id. at 14. The Examiner, however, cites Bajic for teaching this feature. Id. at 14--15. The Examiner also cites Oi for teaching that DCs other than the first DC are configured for not transmitting respective beacon frames in concluding that the claim would have been obvious. Id. at 13. Appellants assert a skilled artisan understands an encrypted message needs decryption to send an acknowledgement, but argues the Examiner does not explain why Bajic's pre-shared keys are used in encryption apart from conclusory statements. Reply Br. 6. According to Appellants, Bajic's mutual authentication and derivation of session keys, using the pre-shared keys, does not include encryption. Id. Appellants add that Oi teaches away from a service node's other DCs not transmitting respective beacon frames because Oi excludes any targeted request to a single device. App. Br. 7. ISSUES (1) UnderÂ§ 103, has the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 15 by finding that Ananthakrishnan, Oi, and Bajic collectively would have taught 11 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 or suggested configuring (a) a BRF to include at least an encrypted data sequence with a pre-shared key; and (b) the first DC, responsive to receiving the BRF, to process the BRF and identify the first DC having the pre-shared key in DC memory and applying the pre-shared key to decipher the BRF? (2) Is the Examiner's proposed combination supported by articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to justify the Examiner's obviousness conclusion? This issue turns on whether Oi teaches away from other DCs configured for not transmitting respective beacon frames. ANALYSIS We sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejection of independent claim 15. Final Act. 27-30. Despite Appellants' arguments to the contrary (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 6), Appellants do not persuasively rebut the Examiner's finding that Bajic teaches an encrypted data sequence. Ans. 4. Notably, Bajic's frame 700 includes a media access control (MAC) payload 710 that is encrypted if a MAC frame security bit value is set to "1." Bajic i-f 99; Fig. 7B. Given this functionality, we see no error in the Examiner's unrebutted position that encrypting and decrypting the MAC payload 710 using Bajic's pre-shared keys would have been at least an obvious variation within the level of ordinary skill in the art to yield a predictable result. Ans. 4. On this record, then, we find that using Bajic's pre-shared keys as a means to encrypt and decrypt the MAC payload 710 would have merely yielded a predictable result, and, therefore, would have been an obvious variation to an ordinarily skilled artisan at the time of Appellants' invention. See KSR Int'! Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). 12 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 Nor do we find availing Appellants' contention that Oi teaches away from other DCs of an SN that are not configured for transmitting respective beacon frames for the reasons previously discussed. Lastly, Appellants' contention that the Examiner improperly introduced a new ground of rejection in the Answer (Reply Br. 6) is a petitionable-not appealable-matter that is decided before a Reply Brief is filed and is, therefore, not before us. See 3 7 C.F .R. Â§ 41.40( a); see also MPEP Â§ 1207.03(b). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 15, and claims 16 and 18-20 not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 11. Claims 21-25 We sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 21. Final Act. 16-17. Claim 21 recites, in pertinent part, a method comprising receiving a BRF, from an SN of a plurality of SN s, by a single DC of a plurality ofDCs of the SN. Claim 21 's transition term "comprising" is presumptively open-ended. Gillette Co. v. Energizer Holdings Inc., 405 F.3d 1367, 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005). "[C]ourts ha[ve] repeatedly emphasized that an indefinite article 'a' or 'an' in patent parlance carries the meaning of 'one or more' in open-ended claims containing the transitional phrase 'comprising."' KCJ Corp. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., 223 F.3d 1351, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2000); see also In re Varma, 816 F.3d 1352, 1362---63 (Fed. Cir. 2016). On the other hand, "[ w ]hen the claim language and specification indicate that 'a' means one and only one, it is appropriate to construe it as such even in the context of an open-ended 'comprising' claim." Harari v. 13 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 Lee, 656 F.3d 1331, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2011). We find no such indication here. Therefore, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, receiving a BRF by a single DC encompasses other DCs, in addition to the single DC, also receiving the BRF. The Examiner finds, and we agree, Figure 6 and paragraph 46 of Ananthakrishnan at least suggest that an LBD (a single new PLC device) sends a BRF (Beacon.request frame) to neighboring FFDs and receives one or more responses from FFDs. Ans. 4. To the extent Appellants contend that Ananthakrishnan's LBD receiving multiple responses from FFDs does not teach or suggest receiving a BRF by one and only one DC (App. Br. 11- 12), such an argument is not commensurate with the scope of the claim, which does not preclude other DCs, in addition to the single DC, from also receiving the same BRF that the single DC receives. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of independent claim 21, and claims 22-25 not argued separately with particularity. See App. Br. 12. THE OTHER OBVIOUSNESS REJECTIONS We also sustain the Examiner's obviousness rejections of claims 4, 13, and 17. Final Act. 18. Because these rejections are not argued separately with particularity (see App. Br. 12), we are not persuaded of error in these rejections for the reasons previously discussed. CONCLUSION The Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-25 under 103. 14 Appeal 2017-011628 Application 14/341,366 DECISION4 The Examiner's decision in rejecting claims 1-25 is affirmed. 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). See 37 C.F.R. Â§ 41.50(Â±). AFFIRMED 4 We leave to the Examiner the question of whether "said first DC processing," as recited in claim 1, lacks antecedent basis and renders the claim indefinite. 15