Ex Parte Knowles

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 15, 2018

14952462 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 15, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/952,462 11/25/2015
125968 7590 06/19/2018
V orys, Sater, Seymour and Pease LLP
(ImgTec)
1909 K St., N.W.
Ninth Floor
Washington, DC 20006
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Ian R. Knowles
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.
070852.000017-1 7391
EXAMINER
LIU, TIJNG-JEN
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2473
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/19/2018 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):
patlaw@vorys.com
vmdeluca@vorys.com
rntisdale@vorys.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte IAN R. KNOWLES
Appeal2018-003204
Application 14/952,462
Technology Center 2400
Before MICHAEL J. STRAUSS, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and
NABEEL U. KHAN, Administrative Patent Judges.
CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's
rejection of claims 1-19. Final Act. 11. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b ).
Claims 1-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Lyon et al. (US 2013/0065584 Al; Mar. 14, 2013; hereinafter
1 We herein refer to the Specification, filed Nov. 25, 2015 ("Spec."); Final
Office Action, mailed Mar. 30, 2017 ("Final Act."); Appeal Brief, filed Sept.
7, 2017 ("Appeal Br."); Examiner's Answer, mailed Dec. 1, 2017 ("Ans.");
and Reply Brief, filed Feb. 1, 2018 ("Reply Br.").
Appeal2018-003204
Application 14/952,462
"Lyon") and Pandey et al. (US 2013/0064175 Al; Mar. 14, 2013; hereinafter
"Pandey"). Final Act. 11-35.
We reverse.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant's invention relates to "wirelessly transmitting data between
Wi-Fi stations without requiring the Wi-Fi stations to be fully connected to
the Wi-Fi network." Spec. ,r 5. Claim 1 is illustrative and reproduced below:
1. A method to wirelessly transmit data, the method comprising:
generating at a first Wi-Fi station data to be transmitted to another Wi-
Fi station, the data comprising at least one of status data and wake-up data;
inserting at the first Wi-Fi station the generated data in a vendor-
specific information element of a Wi-Fi probe request frame; and
wirelessly transmitting at the first Wi-Fi station the Wi-Fi probe
request frame;
wherein at least one of the first Wi-Fi station and the other Wi-Fi
station is operating in a low-power mode in which the Wi-Fi station does not
wake up periodically.
(Appeal Br., Claims Appendix).
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues
identified by Appellant, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced
thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 107 5 (BP AI 2010) (precedential).
2
Appeal2018-003204
Application 14/952,462
ANALYSIS
Findings and Contentions
The Examiner finds Lyon and Pandey teach all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 11-23. In particular, the Examiner finds "Lyon discloses about
transmitting data to awake a receiver, but does not elaborate in detail.
Further, Lyon does not disclose about Wi-Fi probe request frame and
vendor-specific information element." Final Act. 16. In particular, the
Examiner finds Pandey discloses the Wi-Fi probe request frame and vendor-
specific information element. See Final Act. 16-23. The Examiner reasons
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to
integrate Lyon's techniques and tools for transmitting beacon
messages using a wireless low power communication protocol
with Pandey's system for client discovery in a Wi-Fi network
with the motivation being to discover client quickly and save
power.
Final Act 23 ( citing Pandey, Abstract, ,r 20).
Appellant presents, among other arguments, the following principal
arguments:
This ground of rejection is in error and must be reversed, for the
reason that neither Lyon nor Pandey disclose the use of a Wi-Fi
probe request frame to transmit status data or wake-up data.
Additionally, the rejection is unsustainable on the record
because it fails to set forth a prima facie showing of
unpatentability as the rejection does not provide a sufficient
explanation of how Lyon would have been allegedly modified
from the disclosure of Pandey, to result in the claimed subject
matter.
App. Br. 5; see also Reply Br. 2-3.
Pandey does not disclose that any status data or wake-up data is
transmitted with the Wi-Fi probe request. Instead, Pandey uses
the Wi-Fi probe request in a conventional way to request data
3
Appeal2018-003204
Application 14/952,462
from the access point, which then responds to the probe request
in a response frame. Specifically, the status data about the
currently detected peer device is sent by the access point to the
requesting client in a response frame, not a Wi-Fi probe request
frame.
App. Br. 6.
In response, the Examiner explains "Lyon discloses generating a
beacon frame with a plurality of network data that is transmitted in low
power mode. Pandey discloses generating probe request frame that is
transmitted by Wi-Fi devices or Aps (Access Points). Appellant's claims are
fully disclosed by Lyon and Pandey." Ans. 49; see also Ans. 38--42 (claim
chart), Ans. 60 (discussing specific teachings of Lyon and Pandey).
Our Review
Pandey discloses a neighbor report request frame (Fig. 6) that may
include "vendor-specific elements defined by the Wi-Fi Alliance (WF A) for
example, for probe requests or Beacons when attempting to discover other
Direct Client devices." Pandey ,r 51. Pandey further discloses a neighbor
response message (Fig. 7) that may include "vendor-specific elements
defined, for example by the WF A, for probe requests/responses to report
discovery information." Pandey ,r 52. Thus, Pandey does not disclose status
data or wake-up data inserted in the vendor-specific information elements of
the probe request frame; rather, the information in the vendor-specific
elements of Pandey's neighbor report request frame is described by Pandey
as conventional. See Pandey ,r 51. Pandey' s neighbor response message does
disclose status data inserted in the vendor-specific information elements;
however, this is conventional in the response message. See Pandey ,r 52.
4
Appeal2018-003204
Application 14/952,462
Accordingly, we find Pandey does not describe the claimed inserting
status data or wake-up data in the vendor-specific information element of the
probe request frame. At best, Pandey discloses a conventional probe request
frame. See Pandey ,r,r 51-52.
Turning to Lyon, Lyon discloses a mobile computing device awakens
in response to a beacon frame. See Lyon Abstract; ,r 61. However, the
Examiner has not sufficiently articulated how or why a skilled artisan would
have modified Lyon to insert wake-up (or status) data in a vendor-specific
information element of a probe request frame. The Examiner's reasoning of
"to discover client quickly and save power" (Final Act. 23) is conclusory
and otherwise lacks sufficient rational underpinning. In particular, on this
record, the Examiner's conclusion of obviousness lacks sufficient supporting
evidence or explanation of how or why modifying Lyon to utilize a probe
request frame as claimed would result in the ability to discover a client
quickly or save power, or is desired for any other reason. As such, on the
record before us, the Examiner's combination is improper.
We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1 or,
for the same reasons, the rejection of independent claims 6 and 14. We also
do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of dependent claims 2-5, 7-13, or
15-19.
ORDER
The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1-19 is reversed.
REVERSED
5