Ex Parte Raverdy et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 31, 2012

10815401 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 31, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/815,401 03/31/2004 Pierre Guillaume Raverdy 80398P594 7970
8791 7590 10/31/2012
BLAKELY SOKOLOFF TAYLOR & ZAFMAN
1279 Oakmead Parkway
Sunnyvale, CA 94085-4040
EXAMINER
AHMED, SALMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3992
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
10/31/2012 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 PIERRE GUILLAUME RAVERDY and
ATSUSHI SHIONOZAKI
________________

Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before ERIC S. FRAHM, JASON V. MORGAN, and BRYAN F. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MORGAN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final
rejection of claims 1 – 40. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
The invention relates to providing inter wireless network
communications. See Abstract.
Exemplary Claims (Emphases Added)
1. An apparatus comprising:
a frame module to process a frame containing
information regarding a local node in a first network, the
information including discovery information and network state
information, the discovery information being represented in a
common description, the network state information including at
least one of network configuration, network status, and network
history;
an information module coupled to the frame module to
manage the information; and
a communication module coupled to the frame module
and the information module to manage communication between
the local node and a remote node in a second network using the
information.
2. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the frame module
comprises:
Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401

3
a frame builder to build the frame containing the
information;
a frame transmitter coupled to the frame builder to
transmit the frame to another local node in the first network or
the remote node in the second network;
a frame poller coupled to the frame transmitter to provide
a polling frame requesting for information of the remote node;
and
a frame receiver to receive another frame from another
local node in the first network or to receive a remote frame
from the remote node.
11. The apparatus of claim 1 wherein the network state
information further includes an interference list.
25. An article of manufacture comprising:
a machine-accessible storage medium including data
that, when accessed by a machine, causes the machine to
perform operations comprising:
processing a frame containing information
regarding a local node in a first network, the information
including discovery information and network state
information, the discovery information being represented
in a common description, the network state information
including at least one of network configuration, network
status, and network history;
managing the information; and
Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401

4
managing communication between the local node
and a remote node in a second network using the
information.
Rejections
The Examiner rejects claims 25 – 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being
directed to non-patentable subject matter. Ans. 11 – 15; Fin. Rej. 2 – 3.
The Examiner rejects claims 1, 6 – 8, 10, 13, 18 – 20, 22, 25, 30 – 32,
34, and 37 – 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Ayyagari (US 2004/0174829 A1; Sept. 9, 2004; filed Feb. 9, 2004) and
Andric (US 2004/0018839 A1; Jan. 29, 2004; filed June 5, 2003). Ans. 4 –
8.
The Examiner rejects claims 2 – 5, 9, 14 – 17, 21, 26 – 29, and 33
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ayyagari, Andric, and
Barber (US 2005/0073979 A1; Apr. 7, 2005; filed May 5, 2003).
1
Ans. 8 –
10.
The Examiner rejects claims 11, 12, 23, 24, 35, and 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ayyagari, Andric, and Nanda
(US 2005/0192037 A1; Sept. 1, 2005; claims priority to provisional
application 60/540,504 (filed Jan. 29, 2004)).
2
Ans. 10 – 11.

1
The Examiner does not list claims 3 – 5, 15 – 17, and 27 – 29 under this
rejection, even though they depend on claims rejected as obvious over the
combination of Ayyagari, Andric, and Barber. However, Appellants do not
challenge, and therefore waive, any arguments based on this misplacement,
which we hold harmless.
2
Similarly, we also hold harmless the Examiner’s unchallenged
misplacement of claims 12, 24, and 36, which depend on claims rejected
over the combination of Ayyagari, Andric, and Nanda.
Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401

5
The Examiner rejects claims 25 – 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Ans. 3.
ISSUES
1. Did the Examiner err in concluding that claims 25 – 36 are directed
to non-statutory subject matter?
2. Did the Examiner err in concluding that claims 25 – 36 fail to
comply with the written description requirement?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Ayyagari
and Andric teaches or suggests (1) “frame information . . . including
discovery information and network state information” and (2) a “frame
module,” an “information module,” and a “communication module,” as
recited in claim 1?
4. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Ayyagari
and Barber teaches or suggests a “frame transmitter” and “a frame poller,” as
recited in claim 2?
5. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Ayyagari
and Nanda teaches or suggests “wherein the network state information
further includes an interference list,” as recited in claim 11?
ANALYSIS
Claim 25 — § 101
The Examiner finds that claim 25, which is directed to an article of
manufacture comprising a “machine-accessible storage medium,”
encompasses a signal and therefore is directed to non-patentable subject
matter. See Fin. Rej. 2 – 3; Ans. 12 – 15. Appellants contend that the
Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401

6
Examiner erred because claim 25 “recites a ‘machine accessible storage
medium,’ not just a ‘machine-accessible medium.’” Reply Br. 2; see also
App. Br. 8.
Appellants’ argument is persuasive of error. The Specification
discloses that program or code segments can be stored on a machine
accessible medium or transmitted over a transmission medium. See Spec.
¶ [0108]. The Specification further discloses that “‘machine accessible
medium’ may include any medium that can store, transmit, or transfer
information.” Id. Thus, the Specification distinguishes between machine-
accessible storage media and machine-accessible transmit or transfer media.
The “machine-accessible storage medium” of claim 25 thus does not include
signals (i.e., machine-accessible transmit or transfer media). Moreover,
claim 25 is specifically directed to an article of manufacture. Signals are not
articles of manufacture. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356 – 57 (Fed.
Cir. 2007). This provides additional evidence that claim 25 is not directed to
patent-ineligible signals. Therefore, we agree with Appellants that the
Examiner erred in concluding that claim 25 is directed to non-statutory
subject matter.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 101
rejection of claim 25, or of dependent claims 26 – 36.
Claim 25 — § 112, first paragraph
The Examiner rejects claim 25 as failing to meet the written
description requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, because a
machine accessible medium “may include any medium that can transmit, or
transfer information, and the processor readable or machine accessible
medium is a radio frequency (RF) link, [thus] it is unclear as to how a
Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401

7
machine can store data in a[n] RF link (a non-tangible medium).” Ans. 3.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred because the Specification
provides examples of machine accessible medium that can store data, such
as “an electronic circuit, a semiconductor memory device, a read only
memory (ROM), a flash memory, an erasable ROM (EROM), a floppy
diskette, a compact disk (CD) ROM, an optical disk, a hard disk, etc.” App.
Br. 9. We agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred; while a “radio
frequency (RF) link” is given as an example of a machine accessible
medium, the Specification discloses that machine accessible media include
both machine accessible storage media and machine accessible transmit or
transfer media. See Spec. ¶ [0108]. Claim 25 recites a “machine-accessible
storage medium” and is not directed to storing data in an RF link. Therefore,
we agree with Appellants that the Examiner erred in concluding that claim
25 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 112, first
paragraph, rejection of claim 25, or of dependent claims 26 – 36.
Claim 1 — § 103(a)
The Examiner finds that Ayyagari teaches or suggests “a frame
containing information . . . including discovery and network state
information.” See Ans. 4 (citing, e.g., Ayyagari fig.5 and ¶ [0064]).
Specifically, the Examiner finds that the DISCOVERY_MSG, which
includes both a device class and an activity indicator, teaches or suggests a
frame containing both discovery and network state information. See id.
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that “the
information in the DISCOVERY_MSG and the CCO_NETCONFIG_MSG
are not contained within a single frame.” App. Br. 11. However, the
Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401

8
Examiner’s finds that the DISCOVERY_MSG alone contains all of the
needed information. See Ans. 4 (identifying device class as “discovery
information” and an activity indicator as “network state information”).
Appellants’ arguments do not address the Examiner’s findings and are not
persuasive of error. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Ayyagari
teaches or suggests “a frame containing information . . . including discovery
and network state information,” as recited in claim 1.
The Examiner further finds that Ayyagari teaches or suggests a “frame
module,” an “information module,” and a “communications module.” See
Ans. 4 – 5 (citing, e.g., Ayyagari ¶¶ [0025] and [0075] – [0079]). The
Examiner finds that Andric provides an additional teaching or suggestion of
a “communication module.” See Ans. 5 (citing, e.g., Andric fig. 75 and
¶ [0212]). Appellants argue that the combination of Ayyagari and Andric
does not teach or suggest these modules. See App. Br. 12 – 14.
The Examiner correctly finds that Ayyagari teaches or suggests a
central coordinator (CCo) node that receives and processes
DISCOVERY_MSG frames. See Ans. 4 (citing, e.g., Ayyagari fig. 5 and ¶
[0064]). The Examiner correctly finds that Ayyagari teaches or suggests that
the CCo node manages discovery information using a topology table. See
Ans. 23 – 24 (citing, e.g., Ayyagari fig. 10). The Examiner also correctly
finds that Ayyagari teaches or suggests that the communications
management is taught or suggested by both Ayyagari, see Ans. 26 – 27
(citing, e.g., Ayyagari ¶ [0054]), and Andric, see Ans. 5 (citing, e.g., Andric
fig. 75 and ¶ [0212]). We agree with the Examiner that by teaching or
suggesting these functions, the combination of Ayyagari and Andric teaches
or suggests modules that carry out these functions. See Ans. 4 – 5. The use
Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401

9
of such modules would have been well within the skill level of an artisan of
ordinary skill, possessing both creativity and common sense. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ayyagari and Andric
teaches or suggests a “frame module” (to process DISCOVERY_MSG
frames), an “information module” (to manage information from
DISCOVERY_MSG frames), and a “communication module” (to manage
communications), as recited in claim 1.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 1, and of claims 6 – 8, 10, 13, 18 – 20, 22, 25, 30 – 32, 34, and 37 –
40, which Appellants do not argue separately with sufficient specificity. See
App. Br. 10 – 14.
Claim 2 — § 103(a)
Claim 2 depends on claim 1 and further recites “a frame transmitter”
and “a frame poller.” The Examiner finds that Ayyagari teaches or suggests
the frame transmitter. See Ans. 8 (citing Ayyagari ¶ [0058]). The Examiner
further relies on Barber to teach or suggest the use of polling interaction. See
Ans. 9 (citing, e.g., Barber ¶ [0012]).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that Ayyagari
transmits a BEACON_MSG frame, instead of a DISCOVERY_MSG frame
containing discovery information and network state information. See App.
Br. 15. However, the Examiner correctly finds that Ayyagari teaches or
suggests broadcasting (i.e., transmitting) the DISCOVERY_MSG frame. See
Ans. 33; see also Ayyagari ¶ [0064]. Furthermore, we agree with the
Examiner that Ayyagari’s teaching or suggestion of this function further
teaches or suggests a module to carry out this function. See Ans. 8.
Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401

10
Therefore, we agree with the Examiner that Ayyagari teaches or suggests “a
frame transmitter,” as recited in claim 2.
Appellants further argue that Barber’s teaching or suggestion of
RTS/CTS (request-to-send/clear-to-send) polling interaction relates to
packaging up traffic between visitor clients rather than to providing a polling
frame. See App. Br. 16; Reply. Br. 6. However, the Examiner properly relies
on Barber for the narrow teaching or suggestion of a polling interaction. See
Ans. 9 (citing, e.g., Barber ¶ [0012]). Appellants do not persuasively show
error in the Examiner’s reliance on the combined teachings of Ayyagari and
Barber to teach or suggest a frame poller. Therefore, we agree with the
Examiner that the combination of Ayyagari and Barber teaches or suggests
“a frame poller,” as recited in claim 2.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 2, and of claims 3 – 5, 9, 14 – 17, 21, 26 – 29, and 33, which
Appellants do not argue separately with sufficient specificity. See App. Br.
14 – 17.
Claim 11 — § 103(a)
Claim 11 depends on claim 1 and further recites “wherein the network
state information further includes an interference list.” The Examiner finds
that Nanda, which describes stations in a network mesh that detect
interfering neighbors, teaches or suggests an interference list. See Ans. 10
(citing, e.g., Nanda ¶ [0010]); see also Ans. 39 (citing Nanda ¶ [0014]).
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred, arguing that Nanda’s
“interference list is not included as part of the network state information.”
App. Br. 18. However, we agree with the Examiner that Nanda’s
interference list field, which includes a list of interfering remote stations, is
Appeal 2010-006461
Application 10/815,401

11
another form of network state information—a form of network state
information that would have been obvious to an artisan of ordinary skill to
include as part of the network state information. See Ans. 39. Therefore, we
agree with the Examiner that the combination of Ayyagari and Nanda
teaches or suggests “wherein the network state information further includes
an interference list,” as recited in claim 11.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
of claim 11, and of claims 12, 23, 24, 35, and 36, which Appellants do not
argue separately with sufficient specificity. See Ans. 18 – 20.
DECISION
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 – 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 101.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1 – 40 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
We do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 25 – 36 under 35
U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 – 40 is 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)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

ELD