Ex Parte VIJAYASANKAR et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardJun 29, 2018

14540111 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE 14/540,111 11/13/2014 23494 7590 07/03/2018 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS IN CORPORA TED PO BOX 655474, MIS 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 FIRST NAMED INVENTOR KUMARAN VIJA Y ASANKAR 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. TI-71023A 4180 EXAMINER MARCELO, MEL VIN C ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2463 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 07/03/2018 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): uspto@ti.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KUMARAN VIJA Y ASANKAR, RAMANUJA VEDANTHAM, ANAND G. DABAK, TARKESH P ANDE, and IL HAN KIM Appeal2018-001962 Application 14/540, 111 1 Technology Center 2400 Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, MICHAEL M. BARRY, and PHILLIP A. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. BENNETT, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 134(a) from the Examiner's final rejection of claims 54--68. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 6(b ). We reverse. 1 Appellants' Brief ("Br.") identifies Texas Instruments Incorporated, as the real party in interest. Br. 3. Appeal2018-001962 Application 14/540, 111 CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to flow control in powerline communication networks. Spec. ,r 2. Claims 54 and 61 are in dispute, and are reproduced below: 54. A powerline communications (PLC) transmitter configured to receive an ACK frame that includes a delimiter type field; said PLC transmitter deferring a transmission of a data frame for a congestion clearing wait time upon receiving either a BUSY-ACCEPT or a BUSY-REJECT delimiter type field. 61. A powerline communications (PLC) receiver having a data buffer; said PLC receiver configured to transmit an ACK frame that includes a delimiter type field; said delimiter type field is BUSY-REJECT if said data buffer is full when said PLC receiver receives a data frame, and said delimiter type field is BUSY-ACCEPT if said data buffer is not full but is beyond a threshold when said PLC receiver receives said data frame. Br. 13, 14 (Claims Appendix). REJECTIONS Claims 54--68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, first paragraph as failing to comply with the written description requirement. Final Act. 3. Claims 54--68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112, second paragraph as being indefinite. Final Act. 3--4. ISSUE Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. Â§ 112 for lack of written description and indefiniteness? 2 Appeal2018-001962 Application 14/540, 111 ANALYSIS The Examiner rejects claims 54---60 for lacking written description and indefiniteness because they are directed to a "PLC transmitter" but "the original disclosure does not use or provide support to the terminology," and also because they are directed to a "PLC transmitter" that is configured to receive. The Examiner concludes the claims are indefinite because "[ w ]hile a 'transmitter' is a well-known device that transmits, it is not clear how a transmitter can also 'receive' since that is not its well-known function." Final Act. 3. The Examiner rejects claims 61---68 because they are directed to a "PLC receiver" but "the original disclosure does not use or provide support to the terminology," and also provides a similar rationale for concluding the claims are indefinite. Id. Appellants argue the use of the phrases "PLC transmitter" and "PLC receiver" are definite and find support throughout the Specification. Br. 9 (citing Spec. ,r,r 5, 13, 15, 16, 34, 37, 38). More specifically, Appellants argue "paragraph 37 teaches that a PLC network provides a network device 'that is capable of transmitting and/or receiving information over a powerline."' Br. 9 (quoting Spec. ,r 37). Appellants further cite paragraphs 5, 13, 16, and 38, arguing they make clear that "source nodes and base nodes can operate as either a transmitter or a receiver in the PLC network." Br. 9. We are persuaded the Examiner has erred. We find no inconsistency in Appellants' use of the phrase "PLC transmitter" for a device that is configured to, inter alia, "receive an ACK frame." A PLC transmitter is a device that must at least transmit PLC data. However, we see nothing in the Specification or in the plain meaning of the phrase indicating that a PLC transmitter can only possess one function. Thus, the fact that a device can 3 Appeal2018-001962 Application 14/540, 111 also receive data does not mean that it is not a "PLC transmitter." Rather, it merely means that it is a PLC transmitter with an additional receiving capability. We also find the same reasoning applies to the recited "PLC receiver." Because we do not find the scope of the recited "PLC transmitter" and "PLC receiver" unclear, we agree with Appellants that the claims are not indefinite. Moreover, Appellants' Specification discloses a PLC transmitter with a receiving capability (Spec. ,r 27 ( describing sender node as receiving ACK frames) and a PLC receiver with a transmit capability (Spec. ,r 27 ("The destination node transmits the data frame")). Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has erred in rejecting Appellants' claims as being indefinite and lacking written description, and we do not sustain these rejections. DECISION We reverse the Examiner's rejections of claims 54---68. REVERSED 4