Ex Parte Xhafa et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardFeb 12, 2018

13951798 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 12, 2018)

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. 13/951,798 07/26/2013 Ariton E. Xhafa TI-72697 1049 23494 7590 02/14/2018 TEXAS INSTRUMENTS INCORPORATED P O BOX 655474, M/S 3999 DALLAS, TX 75265 EXAMINER YOUNG, STEVE R ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2477 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 02/14/2018 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 ARITON E. XHAFA, BRADFORD JAMES CAMPBELL, ANUJ BATRA, and SRINATH HOSUR Appeal 2017-009140 Application 13/951,7981 Technology Center 2400 Before DEBRA K. STEPHENS, DANIEL J. GALLIGAN, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII, Administrative Patent Judges. GALLIGAN, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Introduction Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from a non-final rejection of claims 1—20, which are all of the claims pending in the application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART.2 1 According to Appellants, the real party in interest is Texas Instruments Incorporated. App. Br. 1. 2 Our Decision refers to Appellants’ Appeal Brief filed December 16, 2016 (“App. Br.”); Appellants’ Reply Brief filed June 14, 2017 (“Reply Br.”); Examiner’s Answer mailed April 20, 2017 (“Ans.”); and Non-Final Office Action mailed August 17, 2016 (“Non-Final Act.”). Appeal 2017-009140 Application 13/951,798 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Claims on Appeal Claims 1, 8, and 16 are independent claims. Claim 1 is reproduced below: 1. A method, comprising: defining, by a network coordinator for a wireless sensor network, a channel hopping list that specifies on which dedicated channel of the wireless sensor network a beacon signal is transmitted in each slot frame of the wireless sensor network; setting, by the network coordinator, a number of timeslots in each slot frame to be an integer multiple of a length of the channel hopping list; and transmitting, by the network coordinator, a first beacon signal in each slot frame on a dedicated channel specified by the channel hopping list, wherein the setting of the number of timeslots in each slot frame causes the first beacon signal to be transmitted on a same dedicated channel in each slot frame. Ho ’909 References US 2006/0092909 A1 May 4, 2006 Li US 2008/0013479 A1 Jan. 17, 2008 Kohvakka US 2008/0253327 A1 Oct. 16, 2008 Kim US 2009/0016314 A1 Jan. 15,2009 Ho US 2010/0202354 A1 Aug. 12, 2010 Examiner’s Rejections Claims 1, 3, 5—9, 11, 13—17, and 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho and Li. Non-Final Act. 2—11. Claims 2, 10, and 18 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho, Li, and Kohvakka. Id. at 11—15. 2 Appeal 2017-009140 Application 13/951,798 Claims 4 and 12 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho, Li, and Ho ’909. Id. at 15—16. Claim 20 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho, Li, and Kim. Id. at 16—17. Our review in this appeal is limited only to the above rejections and the issues raised by Appellants. Arguments not made are waived. See MPEP § 1205.02; 37 C.F.R. §§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv) and 41.39(a)(1). ANALYSIS Independent claims 1, 8, and 16 “an integer multiple of a length of the channel hopping list” Appellants contend Ho does not teach “setting, by the network coordinator, a number of timeslots in each slot frame to be an integer multiple of a length of the channel hopping list,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 16. App. Br. 9-11, 14—17, 21—24; Reply Br. 2—8. Specifically, Appellants argue Ho’s “potential PN sequence values (0, 1, 2, 3) which define potential offsets at each quarter of the beacon period ... do NOT represent ‘an integer multiple of a length of the channel hopping list.’” App. Br. 10 (citation omitted); Reply Br. 4. Appellants further argue “[tjhere is no concept of ‘length’ associated with [Ho’s] Beacon Shift Sequence Index or Beacon Shifting Sequence Phase.” Reply Br. 3, 6. Additionally, Appellants argue Ho’s 4N slot allocation “has nothing to do with the channel hopping sequence.” App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6-7. We are not persuaded. We agree with the Examiner (Non-Final Act. 3) that Ho teaches setting “the length of the current beacon period in 3 Appeal 2017-009140 Application 13/951,798 units of allocation slots” and that a “beacon period must have 4N allocation slots in length, where N is an integer,” e.g., “256 allocation slots.” Ho 1125. Appellants’ arguments, that Ho’s values “do NOT represent ‘an integer multiple of a length of the channel hopping list’” (App. Br. 10; Reply Br. 4), that “[t]here is no concept of ‘length’ associated with” Ho’s sequences (Reply Br. 3, 6), and that Ho’s 4N slot allocation “has nothing to do with the channel hopping sequence” (App. Br. 11; Reply Br. 6—7), are not persuasive. Appellants point out that Ho’s “beacon is transmitted in the same channel by forcing the channel hopping sequence NOT [to] be used.” App. Br. 11 (emphasis added); Reply Br. 6; see App. Br. 20. Indeed, Ho teaches “generat[ing] the channel hopping sequence” such that “the hop is to dwell on the current channel for an indefinite period of time.” Ho 1134. As such, Ho’s one-hop channel hopping list has a channel hopping list length of one because there is one channel specified for transmission. Furthermore, because any integer is an integer multiple of one, Ho’s “4N allocation slots . . . where N is an integer” e.g., “256 allocation slots” (Ho 1125), are an integer multiple of one. Appellants’ remaining arguments do not address Ho’s channel hopping list of one. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding Ho teaches “setting, by the network coordinator, a number of timeslots in each slot frame to be an integer multiple of a length of the channel hopping list,” within the meaning of claims 1,8, and 16. “a network coordinator for a wireless sensor network” Appellants contend Li does not teach “a network coordinator for a wireless sensor network . . . specifies on which dedicated channel of the 4 Appeal 2017-009140 Application 13/951,798 wireless sensor network a beacon signal is transmitted,” as recited in claim 1 and similarly recited in claims 8 and 16. App. Br. 11—13, 17—18, 24—25; Reply Br. 8—9. Specifically, Appellants argue “while Li teaches a dedicated channel for a base station, it does not teach or suggest use of a dedicated channel for a network coordinator in a wireless sensor network.” App. Br. 12. Appellants further argue “one having skill in the wireless sensor network art would not construe Li’s cellular base station to be a coordinator for a wireless sensor network.” Reply Br. 9. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds (Non-Final Act. 3), and we agree, Ho teaches a wireless sensor network including a “[djevice 200 . . . coupled to other devices, such as .. . sensors 208” (Ho 1 88; see Ho 11 6—7). The Examiner further finds (Non-Final Act. 3), and we agree, Ho teaches that “[e]ach subnet [in a network] is coordinated by a hub,” i.e., a network coordinator, and “a beacon is transmitted by the hub” within the wireless sensor network (Ho 17; see also Ho H 8—9). The Examiner further finds (Non-Final Act. 4), and we agree, Li teaches “[bjeacons are transmitted . . . via a dedicated channel known as a broadcast beacon channel” (Li 141). Appellants’ argument that Li teaches a dedicated channel “for a base station” rather than “for a network coordinator in a wireless sensor network” (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 9) improperly attacks Li individually when the rejection is based on the combination of Ho and Li. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981). In particular, Appellants do not address the Examiner’s combination of Ho, teaching a network coordinating hub that transmits a beacon for a wireless sensor network, with Li, teaching beacon transmission via a dedicated channel, to teach “a network coordinator for a 5 Appeal 2017-009140 Application 13/951,798 wireless sensor network . . . specifies on which dedicated channel of the wireless sensor network a beacon signal is transmitted.” Non-Final Act. 3— 4. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ho and Li teaches “a network coordinator for a wireless sensor network . . . specifies on which dedicated channel of the wireless sensor network a beacon signal is transmitted,” within the meaning of claims 1, 8, and 16. Improper combination Appellants contend the Examiner improperly combined Ho and Li. App. Br. 11—13, 17—18, and 24—25; Reply Br. 8—9. Specifically, Appellants argue the “Examiner has provided no evidence or well-reasoned arguments why it would have been obvious to combine” Li and Ho because “there is no teaching in Li that [Li’s] dedicated channel would save power” (App. Br. 12) and because saving power “is an important issue in wireless sensor networks” (Reply Br. 10). Appellants further argue the “Examiner has provided no evidence whatsoever that Li’s teaching will ‘improve ways to communicate Ho’s beacon signals.’” App. Br. 12; see Reply Br. 10. We are not persuaded. The Examiner finds, and we agree, a skilled artisan would have been motivated to combine Ho and Li “in order to improve ways to communicate beacon signals and reduce impairment.” Non-Final Act. 4 (citing Li | 8). Appellants’ arguments that a person of ordinary skill in the art would not have combined the teachings of Ho and Li because the combination is not directed to power savings (App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 10) do not address the 6 Appeal 2017-009140 Application 13/951,798 Examiner’s stated motivation for the combination. The rationale for the combination is not limited to the “power savings” rationale Appellants proffer. Instead, “there must some articulated reasoning with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR Int’l v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417—18 (2007). Here, the Examiner has articulated reasoning with rational underpinning supporting the combination of Ho and Li, namely “improv[ing] ways to communicate beacon signals and reducing] impairment.” Non-Final Act. 4. Further, we are not persuaded by Appellants’ argument that the “Examiner has provided no evidence whatsoever that Li’s teaching will ‘improve ways to communicate Ho’s beacon signals.’” App. Br. 12; Reply Br. 10. As the Examiner finds (Non-Final Act. 4), Li itself teaches that its system, using dedicated channels, improves beacon signal communication and signal impairment reduction (Li | 8). Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner improperly combined Ho and Li. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of claims 1, 8, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho and Li. Dependent Claim 11 Appellants contend Ho does not teach “transmit[ting] a second beacon signal in each slot frame . . . wherein the number of timeslots in each slot frame causes the second beacon signal to be transmitted on a same dedicated channel in each slot frame.” App. Br. 19—20; Reply Br. 11—13. Specifically, 7 Appeal 2017-009140 Application 13/951,798 Appellants contend “[t]here is no teaching or suggestion in Ho that two or more beacon signals are transmitted in the same slot frame.” Reply Br. 13. We are not persuaded. As discussed above, Ho’s hub transmits beacon signals in slot frames. Ho 120, 125. The Examiner further finds (see Non-Final Act. 8; see also Ans. 23), and we agree, “neighboring hubs” also transmit beacon signals (Ho 1121). In particular, Ho discloses that “[t]he hub should choose a beacon shifting sequence PN„;(n) that is not being used by neighboring hubs in order to mitigate potential repeated beacon collisions.” Ho 1121. Thus, Ho teaches transmitting multiple beacons in the same slot frame (beacon period) but in different time slots of the slot frame. Accordingly, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in finding the combination of Ho and Li teaches “transmitting] a second beacon signal in each slot frame . . . wherein the number of timeslots in each slot frame causes the second beacon signal to be transmitted on a same dedicated channel in each slot frame” within the meaning of claim 11.3 Dependent Claims 13 and 14 Appellants contend Ho does not teach “transmitting] the second beacon signal on a different dedicated channel from the first beacon signal,” as recited in claim 13. App. Br. 20; Reply Br. 14. Specifically, Appellants 3 Claim 8 and claim 11, which depends from claim 8, both recite “each slot frame,” “a dedicated channel,” and “a same dedicated channel,” raising antecedent basis issues. It is not clear whether the later-recited limitations in claim 11 are meant to refer to the earlier-recited limitations of claim 8 or whether the later-recited limitations are meant to introduce new limitations. In the interest of compact prosecution, we broadly treat the limitations of claim 11 as newly introduced limitations. 8 Appeal 2017-009140 Application 13/951,798 argue “Ho teaches different beacon shifting sequences, but not different dedicated channels.” App. Br. 20. We are persuaded. The Examiner relies on Ho’s Background, Summary, and paragraph 121 as teaching “transmitting beacons from different hubs on different channels” (Non-Final Act. 8); however, as discussed above, Ho teaches a channel hopping list of one (Ho 1134). As such, Ho’s transmissions are on the same channel, rather than different channels. Furthermore, the Examiner does not rely on Fi to teach different channels. See Non-Final 8; see also Ans. 23. Accordingly, we are persuaded the Examiner has not set forth with specificity where the combination of Ho and Fi teaches the disputed limitations recited in claim 13. Claim 14 similarly recites transmissions on different channels; specifically, “the dedicated channel on which the third beacon signal is transmitted is different from the dedicated channel on which the second beacon signal is transmitted.” Therefore, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho and Fi. Remaining Claims 2—7, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 17—20 Appellants do not argue separate patentability for dependent claims 2— 7, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 17—20, which depend directly or indirectly from claims 1, 8, and 16. See App. Br. 13—14, 19, 21, and 26—29. Accordingly, for the reasons set forth above, we sustain the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 2-7, 9, 10, 12, 15, and 17-20. 9 Appeal 2017-009140 Application 13/951,798 DECISION We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1, 3, 5—9, 11, 15— 17, and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho and Li. We reverse the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho and Li. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 2, 10, and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho, Li, and Kohvakka. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 4 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho, Li, and Ho ’909. We affirm the Examiner’s decision rejecting claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ho, Li, and Kim. 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-IN-PART 10