Ex Parte Pawar et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 21, 2016

12146887 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 21, 2016)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
12/146,887 06/26/2008
28005 7590 03/22/2016
SPRINT
6391 SPRINT PARKWAY
KSOPHT0101-Z2100
OVERLAND PARK, KS 66251-2100
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Hemanth Balaji Pawar
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.
5617 5968
EXAMINER
NAJEE-ULLAH, TARIQ S
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2453
MAILDATE DELIVERY MODE
03/22/2016 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 HEMANTH BALAJI PAW AR, SHILP A KOWDLEY SRINIV AS,
ANOOP GOY AL, BHAGW AN KHANKA,
and DUANE ANTHONY TOMKA
Appeal2014-003891
Application 12/146,887
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREYS. SMITH, HUNG H. BUI, and NABEEL U. KHAN,
Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal2014-003891
Application 12/146,887
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's final
rejection of claims 1-24, which are all the claims pending in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Illustrative Claim
1. A method for aggregated acknowledgement of received packets
in a communication system, wherein the communication system included an
access node and a plurality of client nodes, wherein each client node is
distinguished by a client node identifier that is unique within the plurality of
client nodes, the method comprising:
maintaining a division of the plurality of client nodes into two or more
client node groups based on each client node's unique identifier,
receiving at the access node, packets from client nodes in a given
group of the two or more client node groups, wherein all of the packets from
the client nodes in the given group are received within a given time period;
responsive to the access node receiving the packets from the client
nodes in the given group, the access node making a determination of
whether respective packets were received from each client node in the given
group;
if the determination is that the respective packets were received from
each client node in the given group, then the access transmitting an
aggregated acknowledgement message (AAM) to all client nodes in the
given group, wherein the AAM contains acknowledgement data respectively
from each packet received from the client noes in the group; and
if the determination is that the respective packets were not received
from each client node in the given group, then the access node transmitting
individual acknowledgement messages to each client node in the given
group from which the respective packets were received.
2
Appeal2014-003891
Application 12/146,887
Flohr
Esteves
Suda
Larsson
Yeh
Smith
Huckins
Prior Art
us 5,374,952 Dec. 20, 1994
US 2001/00127785 Al Aug.9,2001
US 6,647,002 Bl Nov. 11, 2003
US 2004/0205105 A 1 Oct. 14, 2004
US 2005/0058151 Al Mar. 17, 2005
US 2007/0214400 Al Sept. 13, 2007
US 7, 720,903 B 1 May 18, 2010
Examiner's Rejections
Claims 1-5, 8, 9, 12-14, 16-19, 21, and 22 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Suda, Flohr, Larsson, and Huckins.
Claims 6, 7, 15, and 20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Suda, Flohr, Larsson, Huckins, and Yeh.
Claims 10, 23, and 24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Suda, Flohr, Larsson, Huckins, Yeh, and Esteves.
Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Suda, Flohr, Larsson, Huckins, and Smith.
ANALYSIS
We adopt the findings of fact made by the Examiner in the Final
Action and Examiner's Answer as our own. We concur with the conclusions
reached by the Examiner for the reasons given in the Examiner's Answer.
We highlight the following for emphasis.
Appellants contend Larsson does not teach "determining, for a given
group in the plurality of client node groups, whether respective packets were
received from each of the client nodes in the given group," as recited in
claim 17. App. Br. 10-11; Reply Br. 6. The Examiner finds Larsson
3
Appeal2014-003891
Application 12/146,887
teaches sending acknowledgements or negative acknowledgements
indicating whether packets are accepted or not. Ans. 3-5. Appellants have
not persuasively distinguished determining whether to send the positive and
negative acknowledgements taught by Larsson from determining whether
respective packets were received as recited in claim 17.
Appellants further contend Larsson does not teach "if respective
packets were received from each of the client nodes in the given group, then
the access node transmitting an aggregated acknowledgement message," as
recited in claim 17. App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 7. The Examiner finds Larsson
teaches aggregating acknowledgements into a signal message. Ans. 5---6.
We agree with the Examiner that Larsson teaches "transmitting an
aggregated acknowledgement message" when "packets were received from
each of the client nodes" within the meaning of claim 1.
Appellants also contend Larsson does not teach "ifthe respective
packets were not received from each of the client nodes in the given group,
then the access node transmitting a respective individual acknowledgement
message to each client node in the given group," as recited in claim 17.
Paragraphs 61, 94, and 108 teach that sending positive and negative
acknowledgement messages, either separately or in an aggregate message,
was within the level of ordinary skill. Appellants have not persuasively
explained why sending individual acknowledgement messages when packets
were not received from each client node was "uniquely challenging or
difficult for one of ordinary skill in the art" who can send separate
acknowledgement messages as taught by Larsson. See Leapfrog Enters.,
Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1162 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (citing KSR
Int'! Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 419 (2007)).
4
Appeal2014-003891
Application 12/146,887
We sustain the rejections of claims 1-24.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1-24 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(±).
AFFIRMED
5