Ex Parte Pandey et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2012

11088584 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
_____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
_____________

Ex parte APARNA PANDEY, RANDY L. EKL,
ROBERT D. LOGALBO, and CHRISTOPHER G. WARE
____________________

Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584
Technology Center 2400
____________________

Before ERIC B. CHEN, JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and
TREVOR M. JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judges.

JEFFERSON, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584

2
STATEMENT OF CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a rejection of
claims 7-20. Claims 1-6 have been allowed. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm-in-part.
Introduction
The claims are directed to methods for performing client to client
communication in a wireless network. Abstract. Claim 7, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
7. A method for performing client to client communication
in a wireless local area network comprising;
at an access point in the wireless local area network,
creating an association table identifying clients in the
wireless local area network;
determining a first period for client to client
communication based upon the association table and traffic in
the wireless local area network;
communicating information relating to the first period by
sending a signaling message to the clients; and not
communicating with the clients during the communicated first
period wherein the communicated first period is set aside for
client to client communications.

REJECTIONS
The Examiner made the following rejections:
Claims 7-10, 12-14, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a) as
being unpatentable over Tian (US 2006/0165021 A1, Jul. 27, 2006) and Jin
(US 2004/0264504 A1, Dec. 30, 2004). Ans. 3-5.
Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584

3
Claims 11, 15-17, 19 and 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C §103(a)
as being unpatentable over Tian, Jin, and Benveniste (US 2003/0174665 A1
Sep. 18, 2003). Ans. 5-7.
ANALYSIS
We consider Appellants’ arguments seriatim as they are presented in
the principal Appeal Brief, pages 6-16, and Reply Brief, pages 2-7.

Independent Claim 7
Appellants contend that:
neither Tian nor Jin teaches determination of a period set aside
for client to client communications based on the association
table and traffic, the access point sending to the clients a
signaling message that contains information relating to this
period, or the access point not communicating with the clients
during this period.

App. Br. 9. Specifically, Tian does not teach that the CFP varies or is
adjusted by the Access Point. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2. Tian also fails to
teach or suggest “a client to client communication period that is specifically
set aside for client to client communications and during which the access
point does not communicate with the clients.” App. Br. 8. Appellants also
argue that Jin merely provides an example of client to client communications
but does not describe setting aside a particular time period for direct
communications. App. Br. 8. Finally, Appellants assert that Tian and Jin
teach away from each other and the Examiner has failed to provide a
motivation to combine the references. App. Br. 9.
The Examiner responds that Tian teaches a predefined period that is
adjustable via a variable at the mobile terminal to decrease transmission
Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584

4
delay. Ans. 7-8 (citing Tian, ¶[0007]). In addition, the Examiner found that
Jin specifically teaches “peer to peer communication period without pass
through an Access Point” using the Direct Link Protocol. Ans. 8 (citing Jin,
¶[0010-0011]). Jin and Tian are analogous art in the area of “wireless LAN
contention avoidance systems” that would have motivated a person of
ordinary skill in the art to “reschedule the contention time more efficiently
while certain clients are engaging in peer-to-peer communications.” Ans. 8.
Having reviewed Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner erred, we
agree with the Examiner. Tian teaches a method for client to client
communication in a network using an access point. Ans. 3 (citing Tian,
¶[0023]). The Contention Free Period (CFP) in Tian is adjustable through a
variable in the mobile terminal to a set value. Ans. 8 (citing Tian, ¶[0010]).
Jin teaches a Direct Link Protocol (DLP) for client to client communication
without use of an Access Point to avoid channel contention (Ans. 4, 8 (citing
Jin, ¶¶[0008], [0010-0011]). Although the CFP is also used to avoid
transmission delay as Appellants assert, App. Br. 7, this period also
corresponds to a time where the mobile terminal is not communicating with
the access point. See Ans. 3-4; Tian, ¶¶[0007]-[0010].
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re
Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). It is the
combination of the teachings of the DLP in Jin (¶¶[0008], [0010-0011])
with the CFP in Tian (¶¶[0007]-[0010]) that provides for a variable period
that avoids contention that is set aside for peer-to-peer communication
between mobiles. See Ans. 4; 7-8.
Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584

5
We are not persuaded by Appellants’ contentions that the variable in
Tian is not adjusted by the Access Point, “has nothing to do with adjustment
of the overall CFP,” Reply Br. 2, and are not dependent on a client
association table, Reply Br. 3. We agree with the Examiner that the
Contention Free parameter is set via the access point and uses a table
identifying clients in the wireless network. Ans. 3 (citing Tian [0002],
[0006], [0023]).
We also disagree with Appellants’ arguments that Tian and Jain teach
away from their combination. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 4. As the Examiner
found, both Tian and Jain address collision avoidance protocol for wireless
devices. Ans. 8. Furthermore, we find that the Examiner has provided a
rational basis for the combination, which is to efficiently use the contention
time to improve client to client communication. Id. Contrary to Appellants’
assertions, Reply Br. 3-4, we also find that neither Tian nor Jin discourages
following the path set out in each reference sufficient to constitute teaching
away from their combination. See In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 53 (Fed. Cir.
1994).
Based on the foregoing, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 7.
Independent Claim 13
Appellants contend, with respect to independent claim 13 that Tian
and Jin do not teach or suggests “a signaling message that specifically
contains information relating to a client to client communication period.”
App. Br. 10. As discussed above for claim 7, we agree with the Examiner
that Tian teaches “special control frame … sent by the point coordinator to
control the Contention Free Period (see [Tian, ¶[0021])” and that Jin
Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584

6
discloses the DLP for client to client communications to avoid channel
contentions (see [Jin, ¶[0008]). Ans. 8-9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim
independent claim 13.
Dependent Claim 8
Appellants contend that Tian and Jin fail to teach or disclose a
“signaling message (containing information relating to the client-to-client
communication period) is a beacon transmission, a routing message, or a
protocol related message” as required in claim 8. App. Br. 10. We disagree.
The Examiner correctly found that the threshold communicated in Tian is
“sent by the point coordinator as a routing message to control the Contention
Free Period (see [Tian, ¶[0021]). Ans. 9. Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of dependent claim 8.
Dependent Claim 9
Appellants contend that Tian and Jin fail to teach or disclose “that the
signaling message comprises a start time, an end time, and/or a duration” as
recited in claim 9. App. Br. 11. We agree, however, with the Examiner that
the threshold communicated in Tian equates to the duration for the
coordination of transmissions between the AP and client. Ans. 9 (citing
Tian, ¶[0025]). Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 9.
Dependent Claims 10 & 14
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Tian and
Jin teach or suggest:
determining a period for a new client to associate with the
access point, communicating information relating to the period
by sending a signaling message to the clients, listening for an
Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584

7
association request from the new client during the
communicated period and responding to the association request
from the new client during the communicated period

as recited in dependent claim 10. App. Br. 11. Dependent claim 14 presents
the identical issue. App. Br. 12, Reply Br. 5. The Examiner responds that
the point coordinator mediates between multiple mobile terminals in Tian
and therefore, there must be steps in association and management of new
clients over wireless networks. Ans. 10.
Although we agree with the Examiner that the access point in Tian
would have some steps of associating and managing new clients, the
Examiner has not shown that Tian sets a period for a new client to associate
with the access point or communicates such information to mobile clients.
Because Tian and Jin do not teach the associating steps, we do not sustain
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 10 and 14.
Dependent Claim 12 & 15
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in finding that Tian and
Jin teach or suggest that “the signaling message further comprises
information relating to a period set aside for the access point to
communicate with the clients” as recited in dependent claim 12. App. Br.
12. Dependent claim 15 raises the identical issue presented for claim 12.
App. Br. 13; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner found that Tian discloses a
Contention Period and assigned Contention Free Period which is a set aside
period for communication between the clients and access point. Ans. 10
(citing Tian, ¶[0002]). The Examiner also found that Tian in view of Jin
“discloses the use of Point Coordinator to assign the Contention Free
Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584

8
Period” with a particular mobile based on the communication between the
access point and the mobile terminal. Ans. 10 (citing Tian, ¶[0019]-[0020]).
We agree with Appellants, however, that the Examiner has not shown
that the “same message sent to the clients contains information about both
the client-client and AP-client communication periods.” Reply Br. 6.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims
12 and 15.
Dependent Claim 16
Appellants contend that Tian and Jin fail to teach or suggest:
that a second signaling message with information about the
client to client communication period or access point to first
client communication period and which is different from a first
signaling message (with information about the client to client
period and access point-to-first client period) is forwarded to
the second client by the first client during a protected period

as required in dependent claim 16. App. Br. 13. The Examiner found that
Tian discloses use of Special Frame Control sent by the access point to
control the Contention Free Period to every terminal which would include
the second client of claim 16. Ans. 11 (citing Tian, ¶[0021]). Although
Appellants assert that claim 16 requires forwarding from one client to
another, Reply Br. 6, the scope of claim 16 does not restrict the forwarded
messages to only be sent from client to client. Because claim 16 depends
from dependent claim 15, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 16.
Dependent Claim 17
Appellants contend that Tian and Jin fail to teach or suggest that “the
second client does not communicate with the first client during the second
Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584

9
period,” as recited in dependent claim 17. We disagree with Appellants’
assertion. As discussed above with respect to claim 7, Tian in view of Jin
discloses a contention free period. Ans. 8-9. Tian also discloses that the
second mobile can gain control over the communications with the access
point after the duration of the contention free period. Ans. 11 (citing Tian,
¶[0019]). Under such circumstances, the second client would be
communicating with the AP and not communicating with the first client.
Thus, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claim 17.
Dependent Claims 18, 19, & 20
Appellants contend that Tian and Jin fail to teach or suggest:
that the first client communicating with the second client
comprises: determining a third period (which occurs during the
client-to-client period) to start client to client communication,
capturing a channel during the third period, and communicating
with the second client during the third period by a) selecting the
second client from a list of clients and b) polling the second
client during the third period

as recited in dependent claim 18. App. Br. 14. Appellants also contend that
Tian and Jin fail to teach that this third period is communicated by sending a
signaling message to the second client as recited in dependent claim 19, or
that the second client listens to the channel for communication at the specific
times recited in dependent claim 20. App. Br. 14-15.
We agree with Appellants that neither Jin nor Tian teach polling of
one client by another client as required in dependent claim 18. Reply Br. 6.
The Examiner has correctly found that the combination of Tian and Jin
teaches polling of clients by the access point and setting of a client-to-client
communication period, Ans. 8-9, and that Jin teaches the direct
communication between clients, Ans. 11 (citing Jin, ¶[0010]-[0011]). Jin,
Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584

10
however, does not teach or suggest polling between clients. Jin, ¶[0010]-
[0011]. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claims 18, 19, and 20.
Dependent Claim 11
Appellants contend that Tian, Jin, and Benveniste fail to teach or
suggest “that the access point comprises directional antennas dividing the
WLAN into sectors” where “[e]ach sector has clients and the access point
determines a period for access point to client communications in the sector,”
as recited in dependent claim 11. App. Br. 15-16. The Examiner found that
Benveniste teaches dividing wireless LAN into multiple wireless sectors or
cells and determining the contention free period based on the cell of the
client. Ans. 12 (citing Benveniste, ¶[0066]). The Examiner asserts that
Benveniste “discloses the key concept of dividing wireless LAN into sectors
and the directional antenna is inherently implemented as the LAN is being
divided logically.” Ans. 12. Although Benveniste does teach cells or
sectors and contention free periods, it is not clearly shown that the access
point in Benveniste comprises directional antennas that divide the wireless
LAN into sectors as claimed. We find that the Examiner’s citation to
Benveniste does not support the access point inherently implements a
directional antenna. Thus, we cannot sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
dependent claim 11.
DECISION
For the above reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 7 and 13 and dependent claims 8, 9, and 17. We reverse
the Examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 10, 11, 12, 14-16 and 18-20.

Appeal 2010-007511
Application 11/088,584

11
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART

ELD