Ex Parte Wentink

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardDec 16, 2014

11930715 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 16, 2014)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ______________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ______________ Ex parte MENZO WENTINK ______________ Appeal 2012-004616 Application 11/930,715 Technology Center 2400 ______________ Before CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., JOHNNY A. KUMAR, and CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, Administrative Patent Judges. KUMAR, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s final rejection of claims 1–20. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2012-004616 Application 11/930,715 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Exemplary claim 18 is instructive about the subject matter (emphases added): 18. A method for resetting a signal, comprising: sending, by a computer, a first packet, the first packet including a first legacy layer header; and sending a second packet, the second packet including a second legacy physical layer header, the second legacy physical layer header configured to indicate a duration substantially equal to a length of the second packet, the legacy physical layer header further configured to reset an indication by the first legacy layer header. Rejections Claims 1, 6, 7, 12, 13, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall (US 6,438,383 B1, Aug. 20, 2002), Olgaard (US 2007/0294378 A1, Dec. 20, 2007), Connor (US 2004/0015686 A1, Jan. 22, 2004), and Okuda (US 2003/0161647 A1, Aug. 28, 2003). Ans. 5–12. Claims 2, 8, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable being over Hall, Olgaard, Okuda, Connor, and Chung (US 2007/0191042 A1, Aug. 16, 2007). Ans. 13–15. Claims 3, 9, and 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall, Olgaard, Connor, Okuda, and Lui (US 2005/0226270 A1, Oct. 13, 2005). Ans. 15–18. Claims 4, 10, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall, Olgaard, Connor, Okuda, Liu, and Takagi (US 2009/0016379 A1, Jan. 15, 2009). Ans. 18–20. Appeal 2012-004616 Application 11/930,715 3 Claims 5, 11, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall, Olgaard, Connor, Okuda, Liu, Takagi, and Grandhi (US 2007/0171858 A1, July 26, 2007). Ans. 20–22. Claim 19 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall, Olgaard, Connor, Okuda, and Grandhi. Ans. 22–23. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hall, Olgaard, and Okuda. Ans. 23–24. ANALYSIS1 Issue on Appeal: Has the Examiner erred in rejecting the claims as being obvious over Hall, Olgaard, Connor, and Okuda because the combination of references does not teach or suggest “the legacy physical layer header further configured to reset an indication by the first legacy layer header” (hereinafter “disputed limitation”), as recited in independent claim 1, and similarly recited in independent claims 7, 13, 18, and 20? Rather than reiterate the arguments of Appellant and the Examiner, we refer to the Appeal Brief (“App. Br.”) filed August 15, 2011, the Answer (“Ans.”) mailed November 16, 2011, and the Reply Brief (“Reply Br.”) filed January 17, 2012, for the respective details. We have considered in this decision only those arguments Appellant actually raised in the Briefs. Any other arguments that Appellant could have made but chose not to make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii). Based on Appellant’s arguments the claims stand or fall together. See id. 1 Separate patentability is not argued for dependent claims 2-5, 8-11, 14-17, and 19. App. Br. 14–15. Appeal 2012-004616 Application 11/930,715 4 We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s arguments that the Examiner has erred. The Examiner cited Okuda for the disputed limitation. Ans. 7. We disagree with Appellant’s conclusions. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is taken and the reasons set forth in the Examiner’s Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief (see Ans. 25–29). However, we highlight and address specific findings and arguments for emphasis as follows. Appellant challenges the Examiner’s rejection over the combination of Hall, Olgaard, Connor, and Okuda, arguing “Okuda is non-analogous art” and “header interval timer 42 of Okuda is not a data packet, but rather a circuit.” App. Br. 11–12. In particular, Appellant contends: Okuda discloses a printer (image forming apparatus), and [0096] of Okuda discloses means for turning on a header interval timer 42 that is used to count the time between two printed headers. In contrast, Hall, Olgaard and Conner relate to packet data communication. . . . The data communicated within the apparatus of Okuda is not packet data, but rather is transmitted in dedicated manner over a common bus 30. App. Br. 11–12. The Examiner finds: [I]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention, to modify the system of Hall, Olgaard, Connor by the second legacy physical layer header further configured to reset an indication by the first legacy physical layer header t, as suggested by Okuda. This modification would benefit the system of Hall, Connor for an efficient method of retransmitting information in a wireless communication system. Appeal 2012-004616 Application 11/930,715 5 Ans. 7. The Examiner finds, and we agree, that Okuda is analogous art because the reference is directed to packet data communication: Okuda teaches a device which is a printer which is printing information from a computer (Para [0094-0096]), which includes the control data such as header which is coming from the computer through an interface, Okuda talks about a header and data which comes through an interface, which examiner is interpreting as a packet information and also in Fig. 6 there is a PC and printing device and PC sends the header and data information through the interface to the printing device and physical legacy header is physical legacy header is header information in receiving from an interface with control and data. Ans. 25. In addition, the Examiner finds, and we agree, that in Okuda “control data generally includes the header information in packet network, the mechanism here used in communication between the computer and printer is through data communication.” Ans. 26. Therefore, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that Hall, Olgaard, Connor, and Okuda are properly combinable. We agree with the Examiner because the artisan is not compelled to blindly follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of independent judgment (see Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). As such, we find that Hall, Olgaard, and Conner would be adjusted to accommodate teachings from Okuda by one of ordinary skill in the art. As correctly cited by the Examiner, one of ordinary skill would incorporate the concepts of Okuda into Hall, Olgaard, and Conner without Appeal 2012-004616 Application 11/930,715 6 incorporating every feature of the Okuda principle into Hall, Olgaard, and Conner. Accordingly, we conclude Appellant has not shown reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1–20. DECISION The rejections of claims 1–20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) 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)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED msc