Ex Parte Taghavi Nasrabadi et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 28, 2017

13358326 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 28, 2017)

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.
13/358,326 01/25/2012 Mohammad Hossein Taghavi Nasrabadi 110835 1066
23696 7590 03/30/2017
OTTAT mMM TNmRPORATFD
EXAMINER
5775 MOREHOUSE DR.
SAN DIEGO, CA 92121
BANTHRONGSACK, JEFF
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/30/2017 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
us-docketing@qualcomm.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MOHAMMAD HOSSEIN TAGHAVINASRABADI,
SANTOSH PAUL ABRAHAM, and HEMANTH SAMPATH
Appeal 2016-005294
Application 13/358,326
Technology Center 2400
Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHN F. HORVATH, and
AARON W. MOORE, Administrative Patent Judges.
MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2016-005294
Application 13/358,326
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a Final Rejection of
claims 1, 3—5, 7—14, 16—18, 20-27, 29-31, and 33—49, which are all of the
pending claims. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
THE INVENTION
The application is directed to “[sjystems, methods, and devices to
enable compressed media access control headers and frame check sequences
for wireless local area network (WLAN) systems.” (Abstract.) Claim 1,
reproduced below, is representative of the subject matter on appeal:
1. An apparatus for wireless communication comprising:
a processing system configured to:
negotiate transmission of data packets comprising a
compressed header with a wireless node based on capabilities
exchanged with the wireless node, wherein the capabilities
relate to processing compressed headers; and
generate a data packet, the data packet comprising a
header, the header comprising a first field indicating the
header is a compressed header; and
a transmitter configured to transmit the data packet to the
wireless node.
1 Appellants identify Qualcomm Incorporated as the real party in interest.
(See App. Br. 3.)
2
Appeal 2016-005294
Application 13/358,326
THE REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
van Kampen et al.
Ahmadi et al.
Ptasinski et al.
Zheng et al.
US 2005/0249222 Al
US 2009/0034526 Al
US 2009/0235066 Al
US 2009/0279488 Al
Nov. 10, 2005
Feb. 5, 2009
Sept. 17, 2009
Nov. 12, 2009
THE REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1, 3, 5, 9, 10, 13, 14, 16, 18, 22, 23, 26, 27, 29, 31, 35,
36, and 39-49 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Ahmadi and Zheng. (See Final Act. 6—29.)
2. Claims 4, 7, 11, 17, 20, 24, 30, 33, and 37 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Ahmadi, Zheng, and van Kampen.
(iSee Final Act. 29-37.)
3. Claims 8, 12, 21, 25, 34, and 38 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Ahmadi, Zheng, van Kampen, and Ptasinski.
(iSee Final Act. 37-40.)
APPELLANTS’ CONTENTIONS
Appellants argue the Examiner’s rejections are in error for the
following reasons:
1. “Ahmadi in view of Zheng fails to teach or suggest a processing
system configured to ‘negotiate transmission of the data packet comprising a
compressed header with a wireless node based on capabilities exchanged
3
Appeal 2016-005294
Application 13/358,326
with the wireless node and being related to processing of compressed
headers’ as recited in claim 1.” (See App. Br. 12—14.)
2. “[Regarding claim 3, . . . Ahmadi in view of Zheng fail to
teach or suggest that the ‘transmitter is further configured to transmit
information indicative of a capability to transmit, receive, or transmit and
receive data packets comprising the compressed header during an
association process with the wireless node by using a subfield in a capability
information element of the header.’” (See App. Br. 14—15.)
3. “Regarding claim 10, . . . Ahmadi in view of Zheng fail to teach
or suggest a processing system configured to ‘negotiate reception of data
packets comprising a compressed header with a device based on capabilities
exchanged with the device, wherein the capabilities relate to processing
compressed headers.’” (See App. Br. 15—16.)
4. “[Regarding claim 4, . . . Ahmadi in view of Zheng and
Kampen fail to teach or suggest that ‘the first field comprises a frame control
field, and wherein at least one subfield of the frame control field indicates
the header is compressed, the at least one subfield comprising at least one of
the following sub fields: protocol version, more fragments, more data, or
order.’” (See App. Br. 19.)
ANALYSIS
Claims 1, 5, 7-9, 11-14, 16-18, 20-27, 29-21, and22-49
The Examiner found that Ahmadi discloses all of the features of claim
1, including the “negotiate” step, except that it does not “explicitly disclose
generating a data packet, the data packet comprising a header, the header
comprising a first field indicating the header is a compressed header.” (Final
4
Appeal 2016-005294
Application 13/358,326
Act. 7.) The Examiner further found, however, that Zheng discloses
“generating a data packet, the data packet comprising a header ... the
header comprising a first field indicating the header is a compressed header”
and, further, that it would have been obvious to one of skill in the art to
combine Ahmadi and Zheng. (Id. at 7—8.)
Appellants assert that Ahmadi’s mobile station and base station “may
negotiate the details of the RF physical layer (PHY)” but “none of these
negotiated capabilities are related to processing of compressed headers as
recited in claim 1.” (App. Br. 12.) Appellants further assert that “after
[Ahmadi’s] capabilities negotiation to establish a PHY layer connection
(which is not related to processing of compressed headers), a base station
indicates to a mobile station, or vice versa, that compressed headers will be
used for a particular connection in the MAC layer,” but that “a signal
indicating that compressed MAC headers will be used is not the same as
negotiating a transmission based on the capabilities (already) exchanged as
recited in claim 1.” (Id.)
We find Appellants’ attempt to distinguish Ahmadi by breaking its
connection negotiation process into negotiation of the physical layer and
then negotiation of the MAC layer unpersuasive because the claim does not
prohibit steps occurring in addition to or after negotiation of the physical
layer. As the Examiner finds, Ahmadi discloses “[a] packet data structure
comprising a compressed medium access control (MAC) header structure”
and describes negotiation to enable communications using packets with the
compressed header, a negotiation that we agree is “based on capabilities”
that “relate to” the processing of compressed headers. (Ahmadi, Abstract;
Final Act. 7, citing Ahmadi H 51, 55, 56, 62, 63.) We further agree that
5
Appeal 2016-005294
Application 13/358,326
indicating compressed headers “will be used,” where the recipient of that
information then at least impliedly agrees, as shown by the fact that it
subsequently conducts the communication, to be encompassed by the
broadest reasonable meaning2 of “negotiation.” Indeed, Ahmadi teaches
signaling the “use of the compressed MAC header structure . . . prior to
establishing a connection . . . using a TLV included in one or more DSA
messages,” including a DSA-REQ message requesting the connection, and a
DSA-RSP message “confirm[ing] creation of the connection.” Ahmadi ]Hf
62-63.
Because we find Appellants’ arguments insufficient to show Examiner
error, we sustain the Section 103(a) rejection of claim 1, as well as the
Section 103(a) rejections of claims 5, 7—9, 11—14, 16—18, 20-27, 29-31, and
33—49, for which no additional arguments are offered.
Claim 3
Claim 3 recites that the “transmitter is further configured to transmit
information indicative of a capability to transmit, receive, or transmit and
receive data packets comprising the compressed header during an
association process with the wireless node by using a subfield in a capability
information element of the header.” The Examiner finds that Ahmadi
includes “a 1 bit Cl value for indicating that a CRC value (generally known
as FCS) follow[s] the user data payload in FCS field 116 which is calculated
based on the compressed MAC header 102 and user data payload field 114.”
(Final Act. 8—9.) Appellants argue that “indicating that a CRC value follows
2 See In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1364
(Fed. Cir. 2004).
6
Appeal 2016-005294
Application 13/358,326
the user data payload is not the same as information indicative of a
capability to transmit, receive, or transmit and receive data packets
comprising a compressed header as recited in claim 3.” (App. Br. 14.) We
agree with the Examiner’s findings. While a CRC value may not in general
indicate that compression is being used, in this case Ahmadi states the CRC
value “may be calculated after encryption based on the compressed MAC
header 102 and user data payload field 114” (Ahmadi 118) which we find
sufficient to teach or suggest that the value could be “indicative” of “a
capability to transmit, receive, or transmit and receive data packets
comprising the compressed header.” The Section 103(a) rejection of claim 3
is therefore sustained.
Claim 10
Appellants argue claim 10 is not obvious because “Ahmadi discloses a
capabilities negotiation to establish a PHY layer connection and after the
PHY layer connection is established, an indication that compressed headers
will be used for a particular connection is signaled in the MAC layer.”
(App. Br. 15.) We find this argument unpersuasive for the reasons stated
above, in connection with claim 1, and, therefore, sustain the Section 103(a)
rejection of claim 10.
Claim 4
Claim 4 recites that “the first field [of claim 1 ] comprises a frame
control field, and wherein at least one subfield of the frame control field
indicates the header is compressed, the at least one subfield comprising at
least one of the following subfields: protocol version, more fragments, more
data, or order.” The Examiner finds this in van Kampen’s “Frame Control
and Sequence Control fields,” which “are analogous to the corresponding
7
Appeal 2016-005294
Application 13/358,326
fields of a regular 802.11 MAC header described in the IEEE 802.11 family
of standards” as “the Frame Control Field consists of 2 bytes (i.e., 16 bits)
which includes a protocol version field, more frag field, more data field and
order field.” (Final Act. 30.) Appellants argue the subfield of van Kampen
does not “indicate^ the header is compressed,” as claimed. We do not
agree, because “[t]he Frame Control field of compressed header portion 438
has specific Type and Subtype values that identify CHDATA unit 428 as
such, i.e., as a unit that has a compressed header portion" (van Kampen |
33, emphasis added.)
The Section 103(a) rejection of claim 4 is sustained.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 3—5, 7—14, 16—18, 20-27, 29-31, and 33—
49 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8