Ex Parte Stephens

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardNov 26, 2012

11152276 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 26, 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. 11/152,276 06/13/2005 Adrian P. Stephens 111027-141597 8145 31817 7590 11/27/2012 SCHWABE, WILLIAMSON & WYATT, P.C. PACWEST CENTER, SUITE 1900 1211 S.W. FIFTH AVE. PORTLAND, OR 97204 EXAMINER SKRIPNIKOV, ALEX ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2473 MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE 11/27/2012 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 ADRIAN P. STEPHENS ____________________ Appeal 2010-004584 Application 11/152,276 Technology Center 2400 ____________________ Before ALLEN R. MacDONALD, BRYAN F. MOORE, and JOHN G. NEW, Administrative Patent Judges. MacDONALD, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appeal 2010-004584 Application 11/152,276 2 STATEMENT OF CASE Introduction Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from a rejection of claims 1-24. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b). Exemplary Claim Exemplary claim 1 under appeal reads as follows (emphasis added): 1. A network node comprising a first receive chain; a second receive chain; and a management entity coupled to the first and second receive chains and configured to control the first and second receive chains to cooperate to receive communication from another network node over a channel while the network node is in a first receive-capability state, and to control the first receive chain to receive communication over the channel and the second receive chain to alternate between a power-down mode and a scanning mode while the network node is in a second receive-capability state that provides the network node with less receive capabilities than the first receive-capability state. App. Br. 9. Rejections on Appeal 1. The Examiner rejected claims 1-3, 5-15, and 17-24 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over the combination of Yegin (US 2004/0103204 Al) and Ulupinar (US 2005/0197080 Al). 1 1 Separate patentability is not argued for claims 2, 3, 5-15, and 17-24. Except for our ultimate decision, the Examinerâ€™s rejections of these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2010-004584 Application 11/152,276 3 2. The Examiner rejected claims 4 and 16 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a) over various combinations of Yegin, Ulupinar, and Krantz (US 7,340,615 B2). 2 Appellantâ€™s Contentions 1. Appellant contends that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a), because: Neither Yegin or Ulupinar teach or suggest at least the controlling of "the second receive chain to alternate between a power-down mode and a scanning mode while the network node is in a [reduced] receive-capability state" as recited by claim 1. Interpreting this element in light of the specification, as is required by Phillips v. AWH Corp., would result in the second receive chain switching back and forth between power- down mode and the scanning mode while the node is in the reduced-capability state. 415 F.3d 1303, 1315. See, e.g., Figures 3 and 4 and paragraphs [0026] and [0038]. This interpretation is also consistent with the general understanding of the word "alternate." The alternate scanning/powering down of the second receive chain while the node is in a reduced capability state may provide the node with the opportunistic ability of taking advantage of the time in which the second receive chain is not desired for receiving communications on the operational channel to save power and gain knowledge about other connection opportunities. In some embodiments, the opportunity may be provided by an occurrence of a power- down event that is defined by a network protocol. See claim 3. 2 Separate patentability is not argued for these dependent claims. All these remaining rejections turn on our decision as to the underlying Â§ 103 rejection of claim 1, and are not further addressed herein. Except for our ultimate decision, the Examinerâ€™s rejections of these claims are not discussed further herein. Appeal 2010-004584 Application 11/152,276 4 Yegin is relied upon for teaching the use of second transceiver for scanning purposes. However, it is clear that the second transceiver of Yegin does not alternate between scanning and powered down modes when it is functioning as a discovery transceiver. Instead, the "power saving mode" of Yegin teaches that the second transceiver, when acting as the discovery transceiver, will be in sleep mode until it is determined that a quality of the link is deteriorating. Yegin, paragraph [0033]. At that time, the second transceiver is activated and proceeds to establish another connection to which the IP session will be migrated. After the IP session is migrated, the second transceiver operates as the communication transceiver and the first transceiver, previously operating as the communication transceiver, operates as the discovery transceiver. Yegin, paragraph [0025]. This reactionary scanning is clearly different than the alternating scanning/power-down modes of claim 1. Ulupinar, which was relied upon for teachings related to using an auxiliary receiver to increase receive diversity, fails to teach or suggest use of a receiver for scanning at all, much less the alternating scanning/power saving mode recited in claim 1. (App. Br. 5-6) (emphases added). Issues on Appeal Did the Examiner err in rejecting claim 1 as being obvious because the references fail to teach or suggest the claim limitations at issue? ANALYSIS We agree with the Appellantâ€™s above contentions. Appeal 2010-004584 Application 11/152,276 5 CONCLUSIONS (1) Appellant has established that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1-24 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 103(a). (2) On this record, claims 1-24 have not been shown to be unpatentable. DECISION The Examinerâ€™s rejections of claims 1-24 are reversed. REVERSED ke