Ex Parte Thoukydides et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jan 31, 2017

13387496 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 31, 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.
13/387,496 04/05/2012 Alexander Thoukydides QSR156486 3364
7590
Paradice and Li LLP/Qualcomm
1999 S. Bascom Ave.
Suite 300
Campbell, CA 95008
EXAMINER
MATTIS, JASON E
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2461
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/02/2017 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):
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
uspto@paradiceli.com
william @paradiceli. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte ALEXANDER THOUKYDIDES, DEAN ARMSTRONG
Appeal 2015-001936
Application 13/387,496
Technology Center 2400
Before JEFFREY S. SMITH, JOHN R. KENNY, and
SCOTT E. BAIN, Administrative Patent Judges.
SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2015-001936
Application 13/387,496
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the rejection of
claims 1—26, 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 communication device configured to communicate
with a first wireless network by means of a first protocol and
communicate with a second wireless network by means of a
second protocol, the second protocol specifying that, in
response to a signal of apre-defined format, a device on the
second network should not transmit on the second network for
at least one period of time, the communication device
including:
a first transceiver configured to transmit a signal
according to the second protocol so as to indicate to devices on
the second network that they should not transmit during a first
period of time, and
a second transceiver configured to, subsequent to the
above transmitting step, transmit or receive signals during the
first period of time, and
control logic configured to control the first and second
transceivers such that at least two of the following criteria are
used to determine the signal used to indicate to devices on the
second network that they should not transmit during a first at
least one period of time:
(i) when the signal transmitted by the second
transceiver is due to begin imminently, the first
transceiver transmits the signal according to the second
protocol so as to indicate to devices on the second
network that they should not transmit during the first
period of time by sending to the devices, immediately
prior to the start of the communication between the
2
Appeal 2015-001936
Application 13/387,496
communication device and the first wireless network, a
frame indicating the period of time that the
communication device will be communicating with the
first wireless network; and
(ii) when the signal transmitted by the second
transceiver is known in advance, the first transceiver
transmits the signal according to the second protocol so
as to indicate to devices on the second network that they
should not transmit during the first period of time by
sending, to the devices, a frame containing an indication
of at least one period of time during which the
communication device may be communicating with the
first wireless network; and
(iii) when the signal transmitted by the second
transceiver comprises a bulk data transfer and there are
no latency restrictions on the second network, the
first transceiver transmits the signal according to the
second protocol so as to indicate to devices on the second
network that they should not transmit during the first
period of time by sending, to the devices, a frame
containing an indication of a period of time immediately
following the frame during which the communication
device may be communicating with the first wireless
network.
Moreton
Hill
Gonikberg
Prior Art
US 2004/0013128 A1 Jan. 22, 2004
US 2006/0171304 A1 Aug. 3, 2006
US 2013/0163460 A1 Jun. 27, 2013
Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1—3, 5—9, and 11—26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Moreton.
3
Appeal 2015-001936
Application 13/387,496
Claim 4 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Moreton and Gonikberg.
Claim 10 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Moreton and Hill.
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 Examiner’s
decisions for the reasons given in the Examiner’s Answer. We highlight the
following for emphasis.
Claim 1 recites “control logic configured to control the first and
second transceivers such that at least two of the following criteria are used to
determine the signal used to indicate to devices on the second network that
they should not transmit during a first at least one period of time.”
Appellants find support for the claimed criteria in the Specification’s
disclosure of a duration field in a clear-to-send (CTS) frame, a quiet period
for beacon frames, and a point coordination function (PCF) to support a
period of contention-free operation. App. Br. 3, 4 (citing Spec. 11:1-15:30).
The Examiner finds Moreton discloses “at least two of the following
criteria” in describing the CTS frame and the beacon frame. Final Act. 5, 6.
In particular, the Examiner finds that the beacon frame disclosed by Figure 6
and Paragraphs 85 and 86 of Moreton describes the beacon frame
subsequently disclosed by Figure 9 and Paragraph 96. Ans. 5.
Appellants contend Moreton discloses two ways to service two
frequency channels, each of which involve only a single criterion, not at
least two criteria as required by claim 1. App. Br. 8. In particular,
4
Appeal 2015-001936
Application 13/387,496
Appellants contend the beacon frame of Paragraph 96 and the beacon frame
of Figure 6 and Paragraphs 85— 86 of Moreton are different beacon frames.
App. Br. 9; Reply Br. 1^4. According to Appellants, Paragraph 85 of
Moreton is only related to Figure 7, not to Figure 9. Reply Br. 2.
Appellants assert that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the
description of the beacon frame of Figure 9 and Paragraph 96 as a
conventional beacon frame by reading the disclosure of Moreton in
conjunction with the knowledge in the art. Reply Br. 4.
Appellants’ contention is based on the premise that, according to
Appellants, Paragraph 88 (describing Figure 7) appears to refer to Paragraph
85, but Paragraphs 95—100 (describing Figure 9) do not. Id. However,
Paragraph 85 of Moreton (a) is directly above Paragraph 86, which describes
Figure 6, not Figure 7, of Moreton; and (b) does not describe the beacon
frame of Figure 6 as a separate embodiment from the subsequent discussions
of beacon frames by Moreton. Further, Figure 9 and Paragraph 96 do not
describe that the beacon frame is different than the beacon frame previously
described at length in Figure 6 and Paragraphs 85 and 86 of Moreton.
Appellants do not present persuasive evidence to support their
argument that a person of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the beacon
frame of Figure 9 as something other than the beacon frame previously
described by Moreton. It is well settled that mere lawyer’s arguments and
conclusory statements, which are unsupported by factual evidence, are
entitled to little probative value. In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed.
Cir. 1997); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Attorney
argument is not evidence. In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1405 (CCPA
5
Appeal 2015-001936
Application 13/387,496
1974). Nor can it take the place of evidence lacking in the record. Meitzner
v. Mindick, 549 F.2d 775, 782 (CCPA 1977).
We agree with the Examiner’s findings that Figure 6 and Paragraphs
85— 86 of Moreton describe details of the beacon frame described in the
subsequent disclosure of Moreton, not a different beacon frame not
mentioned in the subsequent disclosure.
We further highlight Paragraph 70 of Moreton discloses that to share a
medium, the 802.11 standard uses a number of methods including use of a
duration field in frames, use of the 802.1 lh quiet period, and not sending
HCF polls. Appellants’ contention that the claimed criteria is not disclosed
by the prior art is inconsistent with Moreton’s disclosure that the claimed
criteria is part of the 802.11 standard.
Appellants also contend that Moreton does not disclose a first
transceiver and a second transceiver as claimed. Reply Br. 5. The Examiner
finds that Moreton discloses the first and second transceivers in describing
an access point having separate antennas, amplifiers, and drivers, each
configured to transmit a signal according to an 802.11a and an 802.1 lb
protocol, respectively. Ans. 8. Appellants do not persuasively rebut the
Examiner’s findings.
We sustain the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Appellants
do not present arguments for separate patentability of claims 2—26 which fall
with claim 1.
6
Appeal 2015-001936
Application 13/387,496
DECISION
The Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—26 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(f).
AFFIRMED
7