Ex Parte Tsao et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 21, 2016

12956782 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 21, 2016)

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. 12/956,782 11/30/2010 Wei-sung Tsao QCB112237 9969 7590 12/23/2016 Paradice and Li LLP/Qualcomm 1999 S. Bascom Ave. Suite 300 Campbell, CA 95008 EXAMINER HSIUNG, HAI-CHANG ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2476 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 12/23/2016 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 WEI-SUNG TSAO and PAUL PETRUS Appeal 2015-007816 Application 12/956,782 Technology Center 2400 Before ELENI MANTIS MERCADER, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and ADAM J. PYONIN, Administrative Patent Judges. Per Curiam. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Final Rejection of claims 1—22. Final Rejection 2. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM. Introduction Appellants’ invention relates to “controlling WLAN and Bluetooth communications by allocating bandwidth into times blocs having a first segment with Bluetooth priority and a second segment with WLAN priority.” Abstract. Appeal 2015-007816 Application 12/956,782 Representative Claim (Disputed limitations emphasized) 1. A method for controlling wireless local area network (WLAN) and personal area network (PAN) communications comprising: providing a device having a WLAN module with a hardware portion, a PAN module with a hardware portion, and a packet traffic interface between the WLAN hardware portion and the PAN hardware portion; dividing available communication bandwidth into repeating time blocs of equal defined duration; allocating bandwidth in each time bloc into a first segment and a second segment; assigning priority to PAN communication for the first segment and assigning priority to WLAN communication for the second segment; and signaling wireless access to the PAN hardware portion through the packet traffic interface during the first segment, wherein for at least one of the first segment and the second segment, both PAN communication and WLAN communication are allowed based, at least in part, on relative priorities of the PAN communication and the WLAN communication. Rejection on Appeal Claims 1—22 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sherman (US 2009/0137206 Al, published May 28, 2009) in view of Bitran (US 2009/0129367 Al, published May 21, 2009). Final Rejection 2. ANALYSIS Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellants and the Examiner, we refer to the Final Rejection (mailed September 8, 2014), the Advisory Action (mailed November 20, 2014), the Appeal Brief (filed March 23, 2015), the Answer (mailed June 24, 2015), and the Reply Brief (filed August 2 Appeal 2015-007816 Application 12/956,782 24, 2015) for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only arguments Appellants actually raised in the Briefs. We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’ arguments that the Examiner has erred. We adopt as our own (1) the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellants’ Appeal Brief, except where noted. Appellants argue Examiner error because “Sherman’s time blocs must be variable in duration” and the Examiner’s proposal “represents an improper modification.” Appeal Brief 4. Particularly, Appellants contend that in Sherman, (time periods T1-T2) is “the duration of the high priority transaction” and T2 is “the time between high priority transactions.” Appeal Brief 5, citing Sherman || 170, 150; see also Reply Brief 2—3. Appellants further contend that “since both T2 and (T1-T2) are continually adjusted based on the detected Bluetooth transactions, the time duration Tl, which is simply the sum of these periods, must also be variable” (Appeal Brief 5), whereas “substituting Sherman’s variable Tl with the repeating equal durations of Bitran’s super-frames is incompatible with Sherman’s intended operation.” Appeal Brief 6; see also Reply Brief 4—5. We are not persuaded by Appellants’ arguments. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that “Sherman’s Tl and (T1-T2) are continually adjusted based on the detected Bluetooth transactions but Sherman’s PRM [Bluetooth Prediction Machine] is also detecting and identifying Bluetooth patterns” which include an “EV4 packet having 24 Bluetooth slots” equal to Bitran’s 15 millisecond super-frame. Answer 6, citing Sherman || 153—156. Under 3 Appeal 2015-007816 Application 12/956,782 this modification, Sherman’s PRM would operate within each 15 millisecond super-frame, which is different from setting T1 equal to 15 milliseconds. The Examiner correctly finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would follow Bitran’s suggestion of a super-frame because it “would provide another implementation for timing synchronization among different types [of] wireless communication devices for sharing [a] common radio resource.” Final Rejection 7. Appellants’ argument assumes the bodily incorporation of Sherman’s teachings, and such argument is unpersuasive: [t]he test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981)(citations omitted). We additionally note that the claimed “dividing available communications bandwidth into repeating time blocs of equal defined duration” itself appears to be a “predictable variation” that a person of ordinary skill could implement. See KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417-418 (2007). Therefore, we sustain the Examiner’s obviousness rejection of independent claim 1, as well as independent claim 12 commensurate in scope, and claims 2—11 and 13—22 not separately argued. See Appeal Brief 6. DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—22. 4 Appeal 2015-007816 Application 12/956,782 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 5