Wentink, Maarten Menzo.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jul 27, 2020

13291142 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Jul. 27, 2020)

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.
13/291,142 11/08/2011 Maarten Menzo Wentink 110407US 9657
15055 7590 07/27/2020
Patterson + Sheridan, L.L.P.
Qualcomm
24 Greenway Plaza, Suite 1600
Houston, TX 77046
EXAMINER
LUO, ANTHONY L
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2465
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
07/27/2020 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):
PAIR_eOfficeAction@pattersonsheridan.com
ocpat_uspto@qualcomm.com
qualcomm@pattersonsheridan.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAARTEN MENZO WENTINK
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142
Technology Center 2400
Before ALLEN R. MACDONALD, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
JAMES B. ARPIN, Administrative Patent Judges.

CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18, 20–23, 25–28, and 30–34. We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm in part.

1 We use the word Appellant to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.42(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as QUALCOMM
Incorporated. Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to “utilizing unused bits in a packet for
transmitting power-saving information.” Spec. ¶ 2. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. An apparatus for wireless communications,
comprising:
a circuit configured to:
determine a transmission scheme for transmitting a first
message comprising a first field of a plurality of fields; and
generate the first message comprising the first field of the
plurality of fields, wherein:
the first field of the plurality of fields comprises
either only a portion of a basic service set identifier
(BSSID) of another apparatus or an indication of a
number of space time streams, based on the determined
transmission scheme;
the first field comprises only the portion of the
BSSID of the other apparatus when2 the determined
transmission scheme is a single user transmission
scheme; and

2 In IPXL Holdings, L.L.C. v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377 (Fed. Cir.
2005), the Federal Circuit held that a claim reciting both a system and the
method for using the system, i.e., a hybrid claim, is indefinite, because it
does not apprise a person of ordinary skill in the relevant art of its scope. Id.
at 1384. In IPXL, the court determined it was unclear whether infringement
of the claim occurred when one created the system or whether infringement
occurred when a user actually used the system. Id. Claim 1, as well as
claims 9 and 14, may suffer from a similar deficiency. Because we affirm
the Examiner’s rejection in part, the Examiner and Appellant may address
this potential deficiency during subsequent prosecution.
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142

3
the first field comprises the indication of the
number of space time streams when the determined
transmission scheme is a multi-user transmission scheme;
and
a transmitter configured to transmit the first message to
the other apparatus based on the determined transmission
scheme.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Ho US 7,630,403 B2 Dec. 8, 2009
Liu US 2010/0260138 A1 Oct. 14, 2010
Xiao US 2010/0293378 A1 Nov. 18, 2010
Ikeda US 8,126,998 B2 Feb. 28, 2012
Kim US 8,315,346 B2 Nov. 20, 2012
REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 are rejected under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Liu and Ikeda.
Final Act. 5–8.
Claims 15, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 30, and 31 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Ho and Liu.
Final Act. 8–11.
Claims 3, 7, and 11 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Liu, Ikeda, and Kim. Final Act. 11–
12.
Claims 16, 17, 21, 22, 26, 27, and 32–34 are rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over the combined teachings of Ho, Liu, and
Kim. Final Act. 13–16.
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142

4
Claims 4, 8, and 12 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over the combined teachings of Liu, Ikeda, Kim, and Xiao. Final
Act. 16–17.
OPINION
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, and 14 over Liu
and Ikeda
The Examiner finds Liu and Ikeda teach all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 5–6; see also Ans. 3–5. In particular, the Examiner finds Liu
teaches “the first field comprises only the portion of the BSSID of the other
apparatus when the determined transmission scheme is a single user
transmission scheme” as recited in claim 1. Final Act. 5–6 (citing Liu Figs.
1A, 9A; ¶¶ 68, 69, 84, 109–110); see also Advisory Action (“Because the
claim recites the first field comprises two elements, which are linked by a
conjunction ‘OR’ . . . it would meet the scope of the claim if the first field []
comprises one of the elements[,] i.e. BSSID, in a broad[,] reasonable
interpretation.”).
Fig. 9A of Liu depicts a frame 900 having a field 920 containing the
BSSID. Liu Fig. 9A; see also Liu ¶ 109 (“PSMP frame 900 includes . . . a
basic service set identifier (BSSID) 920”).
Appellant presents the following principal arguments:
i.
Liu is completely silent with respect to the field having either a
BSSID or an indication of number of space time streams,
depending on what transmission scheme is used. In fact, Liu does
not seem to describe a frame having an indication of a number of
space time streams at all, much less the same field having a
portion of a BSSID or an indication of a number of space time
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142

5
streams based on a transmission scheme. The only mention of a
number of space time streams is in paragraphs [0067]-[0070],
which generally describe a “physical layer packet with Nsts_client
space time streams.”
Appeal Br. 12; see also Reply Br. 2–3.
ii.
Appellant submits that the Examiner must cite prior art that
discloses or at least suggests a structure that is capable of
generating a message having a field that comprises either only a
portion of a BSSID of another apparatus or an indication of a
number of space time streams, based on a determined
transmission scheme.
Appeal Br. 13; see also Appeal Br. 14 (citing Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal
No. 2013-007847).
We do not see any reversible error in the Examiner’s contested
findings. We concur with the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
Our decision turns on the meaning of the following key disputed
language recited in claim 1:
[a circuit configured to] generate the first message
comprising the first field of the plurality of fields, wherein:
the first field of the plurality of fields comprises
either only a portion of a basic service set identifier
(BSSID) of another apparatus or an indication of a
number of space time streams, based on the determined
transmission scheme;
the first field comprises only the portion of the
BSSID of the other apparatus when the determined
transmission scheme is a single user transmission
scheme; and
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142

6
the first field comprises the indication of the
number of space time streams when the determined
transmission scheme is a multi-user transmission scheme.
Claim 1 (emphasis added).
Unlike claim 11 in Schulhauser3 where each means (even though only
conditionally used) is required to be present in the claimed system, we
construe the “either [a] or [b]” language of Appellant’s claim 1 as requiring
the presence of either of two alternatives for the first field, one alternative
being (a) “only a portion of a basic service set identifier (BSSID) of another
apparatus,” the other alternative being (b) “an indication of a number of
space time streams.”
As stated above, Fig. 9A of Liu depicts a frame 900 having a field 920
containing the BSSID. Liu Fig. 9A; see also Liu ¶ 109 (“PSMP frame 900
includes . . . a basic service set identifier (BSSID) 920”).
We find Liu’s disclosure of frame 900 having a field 920 containing
the BSSID teaches the key disputed language recited in claim 1 because
field 900 comprises BSSID 920, and the key disputed language requires
nothing further under our claim construction.

3 Claim 11: A system for monitoring of cardiac conditions incorporating an
implantable medical device in a subject, comprising:
. . .
means for triggering an alarm state if the threshold tissue
perfusion data is not within the threshold tissue perfusion criteria; and
means for triggering an alarm state if the threshold tissue
perfusion data is within the threshold tissue perfusion criteria and the
heart sound data indicates that S3 and S4 heart sounds are detected,
wherein if an alarm state is not triggered, means for collecting
the physiological data associated with the subject is at the expiration
of the preset time interval.
Schulhauser et al., US 2010/0030034 A1, published Feb. 4, 2010.
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142

7
Regarding Appellant’s argument (i), Liu discloses “[a] client can
receive a physical layer packet with Nsts_client space time streams, e.g.,
streams based on MCS.” Liu ¶ 68. Thus, Liu discloses a number of space
time streams. Id. However, on this record, we do not see a specific teaching
of field 920 of frame 900 in Fig. 9A containing an indication of a number of
space time streams.
Regarding Appellant’s argument (ii), we recognize Ex Parte
Schulhauser. In reaching our decision, we emphasize that claim 1 recites a
single occurrence of “generate the first message” that may be performed in
either of two alternate ways, as opposed to reciting two occurrences of
“generate the first message” with each “generate” performed under different
conditions.
We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1.
We also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13,
and 14, which are not separately argued with particularity. See Appeal Br.
15; see also Reply Br. 3–4.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 15, 18, 20, 23, 25, 28, 30, and 31 over
Ho and Liu
The Examiner finds Ho and Liu teach all limitations of claim 15. Final
Act. 8–9. In particular, the Examiner finds Liu teaches “skipping a plurality
of identifiers having a portion that is the same as a portion of a basic service
set identifier (BSSID) of the apparatus” as recited in claim 15. Final Act. 9
(citing Liu Fig. 4; ¶¶ 86, 109) (“When a legacy MAC address is used, it
means skipping some identifiers of the BSSID.”); see also Ans. 6.
Applicant presents the following principal argument:
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142

8
[M]erely using a legacy MAC address [] does not teach
[“skipping a plurality of identifiers having a portion that is the
same as a portion of a basic service set identifier (BSSID) of the
apparatus”] of claim 15. Appellant submits that claim 15 does
not merely recite “skipping some identifiers of the BSSID” as
suggested by the Examiner. Rather, claim 15 provide[s] a circuit
that is configured to assign AIDs by skipping identifiers having
a portion that is the same as a portion of the BSSID (e.g., a
portion of the BSSID being only a plurality of least significant
bits of the BSSID, per claim 15). This is different than merely
assigning AIDs (e.g., sequentially) irrespective of whether the
AIDs being assigned are the same as a portion (e.g., 9 least
significant bits) of a BSSID.
Appeal Br. 16; see also Reply Br. 5.
We determine the Examiner erred in finding Liu teaches the key
disputed claim language of “skipping a plurality of identifiers having a
portion that is the same as a portion of a basic service set identifier (BSSID)
of the apparatus” as recited in claim 15. Thus, we do not concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness.
We construe the key disputed claim language, in particular, “skipping
[an] identifier[],” as requiring consideration of the identifier in light of the
BSSID. Put another way, “skipping” is a specific action. See Spec. ¶¶ 54
(“For certain aspects, while assigning AIDs to STAs, the AP may skip AIDs
with a partial AID equal to its partial BSSID (e.g., equal to the 9 least
significant bits (LSBs) of its MAC address).” (emphasis added)), 55 (“For
certain aspects, while assigning AIDs to STAs, the AP may also skip partial
BSSIDs of other APs in its neighborhood. These BSSIDs may be obtained
through received Beacons from the surrounding APs.” (emphasis added)).
To the extent a client’s “legacy MAC address” (Final Act. 9) does not
have “a portion that is the same as a portion of a basic service set identifier
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142

9
(BSSID) of the apparatus” (claim 15), this alone does not describe that an
identifier having “a portion that is the same as a portion of a basic service set
identifier (BSSID) of the apparatus” (claim 15) was skipped (i.e., was
considered in light of the BSSID and actively skipped).
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 18, which
depends from claim 15.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent claims
20, 25, 30, and 31, for the same reasons discussed above for claim 15.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 23, which
depends from claim 20.
We also do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 28, which
depends from claim 25.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 3, 7, and 11 over Liu, Ikeda, and Kim
Appellant argues Kim fails to cure the alleged deficiencies of Liu and
Ikeda. See Appeal Br. 17; see also Reply Br. 6.
For reasons explained above, we do not find deficiencies in Liu and
Ikeda. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 3, 7, and 11.
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 16, 17, 21, 22, 26, 27, and 32–34 over
Ho, Liu, and Kim
Claims 16, 17, 21, 22, 26, 27, and 32–34 variously depend from
claims 15, 20, and 25. The Examiner does not find Kim cures the
deficiencies of Ho and Liu. See Final Act. 13–16.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 16,
17, 21, 22, 26, 27, and 32–34.
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142

10
The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 4, 8, and 12 over Liu, Ikeda, Kim, and
Xiao
Appellant argues Kim and Xiao fail to cure the alleged deficiencies of
Liu and Ikeda. See Appeal Br. 18–19; see also Reply Br. 7.
For reasons explained above, we do not find deficiencies in Liu and
Ikeda. We, therefore, sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 4, 8, and 12.
CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–18, 20–23, 25–28, and
30–34 is affirmed in part.
DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 5, 6,
9, 10, 13,
14
103(a) Liu, Ikeda 1, 2, 5, 6,
9, 10, 13,
14

15, 18, 20,
23, 25, 28,
30, 31
103(a) Ho, Liu 15, 18, 20,
23, 25, 28,
30, 31
3, 7, 11 103(a) Liu, Ikeda, Kim 3, 7, 11
16, 17, 21,
22, 26, 27,
32–34
103(a) Ho, Liu, Kim 16, 17, 21,
22, 26, 27,
32–34
4, 8, 12 103(a) Liu, Ikeda, Kim 4, 8, 12
Overall
Outcome
1–14 15–18, 20–
23, 25–28,
30–34
Appeal 2019-002104
Application 13/291,142

11
TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
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.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED IN PART