Ex Parte Shinoki

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 26, 2019

13993667 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 26, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
13/993,667 06/12/2013 Yudai Shinoki
21254 7590 02/26/2019
MCGINN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW GROUP, PLLC
8321 OLD COURTHOUSE ROAD
SUITE 200
VIENNA, VA 22182-3817
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.
OSP-381US 9701
EXAMINER
NOORISTANY, SULAIMAN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2415
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/26/2019 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 YUDAI SHINOKI
Appeal2017-003377
Application 13/993,667 1
Technology Center 2400
Before NORMAN H. BEAMER, NABEEL U. KHAN, and
STEVEN M. AMUNDSON, Administrative Patent Judges.
KHAN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Non-Final
Rejection of claims 1-7 and 9-21. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
We affirm.
1 Appellant identifies NEC Casio Mobile Communication, Ltd. as the real
party in interest. App. Br. 1.
Appeal2017-003377
Application 13/993,667
BACKGROUND
THE INVENTION
Appellant describes the invention as follows:
A wireless relay device emits a beacon and makes a wireless
connection with a terminal responding to the beacon, which
includes a selecting section capable of alternatively selecting a
normal mode in which the beacon is emitted in a first cycle and
a power saving mode in which the beacon is emitted in a second
cycle longer than the first cycle.
Abstract.
Exemplary independent claim 1 is reproduced below.
1. A wireless relay device, comprising:
a communication unit and antenna for emitting a beacon
and making a wireless connection with a terminal responding to
the beacon;
a clock unit that measures a current time; and
a control unit executing a selecting processing for
alternatively selecting a normal mode in which the beacon is
emitted in a first cycle and a power saving mode in which the
beacon is emitted in a second cycle longer than the first cycle,
the normal mode and power saving mode being alternatively
selected by the selecting processing in accordance with time
information output from the clock unit.
REFERENCES AND REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 7, 9, and 15-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Walker et al. (US 2009/0034443 Al, pub. Feb 5, 2009) and
Mehta (US 2010/0111066 Al, pub. May 6, 2010). Final Act. 4--8.
2
Appeal2017-003377
Application 13/993,667
2. Claims 2--4, 10-14, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ I03(a) over Walker, Mehta, and Bowser et al. (US 2010/0002610 Al, pub.
Jan. 7, 2010). Final Act. 9--12 and 13-16.
3. Claims 5 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) over
Walker, Mehta, and Yamada et al. (US 2006/0221927 Al, pub. Oct. 5,
2006). Final Act. 12-13.
DISCUSSION
Claim 1
The Examiner relies on the combination of Walker and Mehta to teach
or suggest the limitations of claim 1. Walker is relied upon to teach a
"control unit ... executing a selecting processing for alternatively selecting
... a normal mode ... and a power saving mode." Final Act. 4. Mehta is
relied upon as teaching or suggesting a "clock unit . . . that measure a
current time." Final Act. 4 (citing Mehta ,r 49).
Appellant argues "neither primary reference Walker nor secondary
reference Mehta reasonably teaches or suggests using current time to toggle
between normal and power saving modes." App. Br. 9. Specifically,
Appellant argues "the description in this cited [Mehta's] paragraph [0049]
merely describes functions as controlled on lapsed time, not current time."
App. Br. 10. Appellant further argues that Mehta's lapsed time concept
differs from the claimed "current time" and that the two are not equivalent.
Reply Br. 3.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's argument. We agree with the
Examiner that Mehta's clock unit renders obvious the claimed "clock unit
that measure a current time." Mehta's clock unit is used to measure time in
order to switch between active and power saving modes. Mehta ,r 49. This
3
Appeal2017-003377
Application 13/993,667
is analogous to the claimed clock unit that measures a current time and uses
the current time to switch between normal and power saving modes. Even if
we construe the claimed "current time" to mean time on a fixed scale of a
twenty-four-hour clock, we find that to one of ordinary skill in the art, a
lapsed time clock that indicates time relative to a starting point rather than a
fixed scale, could equivalently be used to switch between the two modes at
certain hours of the twenty-four-hour day.
Appellant further argues "the clock function in Mehta merely cycles
between normal mode and power saving mode and does not thereafter
provide the cycling back to normal mode from power saving mode.
Therefore, there is no suggestion in Mehta of alternating (i.e., being
alternatively selected) between normal/power saving modes based on current
time." App. Br. 10.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments because they attack
Mehta individually and do not address the Examiner's finding that relies on
both Walker and Mehta. The Examiner relies on Walker as teaching cycling
between normal and power saving modes. Final Act. 4. (citing Walker
,r,r 17-18, Figs. 1, 3).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1. We also
sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 7, 9, and 16-19, which were
argued on the same basis. See App. Br. 11 ("As pointed out under ISSUE 1,
neither Mehta nor Walker demonstrate the toggling between normal and
power saving modes by using current time.")
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 7 and recites "wherein the wireless
relay device alternatively enters into a power saving mode if it receives a
4
Appeal2017-003377
Application 13/993,667
beacon signal from another wireless relay device, regardless of the current
time." The Examiner relies on Mehta as teaching or suggesting this
limitation. Final Act. 6 ( citing Mehta ,r 55). Appellant argues "[ n Jo prior art
reference currently of record suggests this dual approach" of transitioning
between modes based on current time, plus based on receiving a beacon
signal from another wireless relay device. App. Br. 11-12.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments. Mehta discloses
"[ s ]witching between the power saving mode and the active communication
mode may be initiated by a beacon-transmitting wireless device or by a
listening wireless device, depending upon the particular embodiment and/or
its operating conditions." Mehta ,r 55. Thus, Mehta teaches that the
listening wireless device may switch between power saving and active
modes when receiving a beacon from a beacon-transmitting wireless device.
We agree with the Examiner that this teaches a wireless relay device
(Mehta's listening wireless device) alternatively entering a power saving
mode if it receives a beacon signal from another wireless device (i.e.
Mehta' s beacon-transmitting wireless device).
Appellant's argument that the references do not teach a dual approach
fails to recognize that the Examiner's rejection builds on the rejection of
claim 7 where the Examiner finds Mehta alternatively selects between
normal and power saving mode based on Mehta's clock unit. Final Act. 5
( citing Mehta ,r 49).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 15. We
also sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 5 for the same reasons.
5
Appeal2017-003377
Application 13/993,667
Claim 20
The Examiner finds that wireless device 300 of Mehta teaches the
claimed "management server" of claim 20. See Final Act. 7 ( citing Mehta
,r 48, Fig. 3). Appellant argues they "can find no support [that] ... Mehta is
directed toward a management server controlling a plurality of wireless relay
devices." App. Br. 12.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments. Mehta discloses that
its wireless device "allow[ s] the user to control the operation of wireless
device 300 and/or other devices within the system." Mehta ,r 48 (emphasis
added). Thus, we agree with the Examiner that Mehta's wireless device,
which the Examiner finds includes the same claimed features of the claimed
management server, such as a processor and memory storing instructions for
controlling normal and power saving modes of wireless relay devices (Ans.
16), teaches or suggests the claimed management server.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 20.
Claim 2
Claim 2 recites "[ t ]he wireless relay device according to claim 1,
further comprising an operating unit including a user interface section
receiving inputs from a user ... to select between the normal mode and the
power saving mode." The Examiner finds Bowser teaches an operating unit
(i.e. Bowser's controller) that includes a user interface for selecting between
normal and power saving modes. Final Act. 9 ( citing Bowser ,r,r 44, 99).
Appellant argues that Bowser's user interface is a feature of a "server,
not [of a] controller within an AP such as demonstrated by Walker and
Mehta .... " App. Br. 13. Appellant also argues that the Examiner has not
"provide[ d] any motivation to change the principle of operation of
6
Appeal2017-003377
Application 13/993,667
Walker/Mehta so that such feature would be capable of operation." App.
Br. 13.
We are unpersuaded by Appellant's arguments because we agree with
the Examiner that it would be obvious to incorporate the user interface
feature of Bowser into the wireless device of the Walker and Mehta
combination and the Examiner articulates a reason with rational
underpinning for doing so. For example, the Examiner finds "it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, to modify the device of
Walker and Mehta to include a user interface section for providing a user
interface for making a specification to the selecting section as to select
between the normal mode and the power saving mode of Bowser to
authenticate and account for its users." Final Act. 9.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 2.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites a wireless LAN system "further comprising a
management server including a user interface permitting inputs to define a
specification to for [sic] remotely coordinating the plurality of wireless relay
devices to select between the normal mode and the power saving mode."
The Examiner finds Bowser teaches the management server (i.e.
Bowser's controller) including the claimed user interface. Final Act. 10
( citing Bowser ,r,r 98-99). Appellant argues the Examiner's combination
would require modification of Walker and Mehta to incorporate a
mechanism based on current time and to accommodate a management
server. App. Br. 13.
7
Appeal2017-003377
Application 13/993,667
These are the same arguments presented for claim 1 and claim 2 and
thus, we find these arguments unpersuasive for the same reasons discussed
regarding those respective claims.
Claim 10
Claim 10 depends from claim 7 and recites "wherein the alternatively
selecting of the normal mode and the power [sic] mode further comprises
comparing the time information from the clock unit with at least one time
setting that has been preset to define a transition between one of the normal
mode and the power saving mode." Appellant argues "none of the examples
of changing settings indicate having each AP programmed with individual
current time settings so that normal mode/power saving mode is toggled
based on information from a clock internal to the AP that is measuring
current time." App. Br. 15.
Appellant's arguments regarding the references failing to disclose a
current time have been addressed above with respect to claim 1 and are
unpersuasive. Appellant's arguments regarding the absence of an internal
clock in the cited APs is also unpersuasive as the Examiner finds Mehta
discloses a wireless relay device with an internal clock. See Final Act. 5
( citing Mehta Fig. 3 ( element 316) ).
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 10.
Claims 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 21
Appellant argues each of dependent claims 4, 6, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 21
largely on the same basis, contending that references do not teach "APs with
mode settings based on current time." See, e.g., Final Act. 13-16. We find
these arguments to be unpersuasive for the reasons discussed above with
respect to claim 1.
8
Appeal2017-003377
Application 13/993,667
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1-7 and 9-21 are affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended. See 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED
9