Ex Parte Kore et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 31, 2017

13495877 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 31, 2017)

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.
13/495,877 06/13/2012 Vinayak Sadashiv Kore H0031915/8364/115277/3900 8740
92556 7590 04/04/2017
HONEYWELL/HUSCH
Patent Services
115 Tabor Road
P.O.Box 377
MORRIS PLAINS, NJ 07950
EXAMINER
SEFCHECK, GREGORY B
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/04/2017 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):
patentservices-us @ honey well, com
amy. hammer @ hu schblackwell .com
pto-chi@huschblackwell.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte VINAYAK SADASHIV KORE and MOHAMMED RIZWAN
Appeal 2016-004482
Application 13/495,8771
Technology Center 2400
Before KRISTEN L. DROESCH, MATTHEW J. McNEILL, and
SCOTT E. BAIN Administrative Patent Judges.
BAIN, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants 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.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as Honeywell International,
Inc. App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-004482
Application 13/495,877
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Claimed Invention
The claimed invention relates to improving reliability of wireless
detectors used in security systems. Spec. 11. Claims 1, 9, and 17 are
independent. Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and the subject matter
of the appeal, and reads as follows (with the disputed limitation
emphasized):
1. A method comprising:
providing a plurality of wireless detectors within a
security system, each of the plurality of wireless detectors
exchanging packets with a control panel of the security system
either directly or through another of the plurality of wireless
detectors;
at least one of the plurality of wireless detectors
monitoring a wireless channel of a transmission radio frequency
band for a periodically transmitted packet from another of the
plurality of wireless detectors, decoding the packet and
forwarding the received packet to the control panel;
the at least one wireless detector detecting radio
frequency energy on the wireless channel; and
the at least one wireless detector transmitting a packet
notifying the control panel of jamming upon failing to decode
the periodically transmitted packet from the other wireless
detector while continuing to detect radio frequency energy on
the wireless channel in place of the periodically transmitted
packet.
App. Br. 21 (Claims App.).
The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 9, 12, 17, and 18 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Manjeshwar et al. (US 7,426,190
2
Appeal 2016-004482
Application 13/495,877
B2; Sep. 16, 2008) (“Manjeshwar”) and Almgren et al. (US 2013/0344823
Al; Dec. 26, 2013) (“Almgren”). Final Act. 3-8.
Claims 2-4, 10, 11, and 19 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Manjeshwar, Almgren, and Ross et
al. (US 8,199,000 B2; Jun. 12, 2012) (“Ross”). Final Act. 9-12.
Claims 5 and 13 stand rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Manjeshwar, Almgren, and Tang et al. (US 2007/0200688
Al; Aug. 30, 2007) (“Tang”). Final Act. 12-13.
Claims 6—8, 14—16, and 20 stand rejected under pre-AIA
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Manjeshwar, Almgren, and Stilp
(US 7,495,544 B2; Feb. 24, 2009). Final Act. 13-17.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellants’
arguments presented in this appeal. Arguments which Appellants could
have made but did not make in the Briefs are deemed to be waived. See
37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). On the record before us, we are not persuaded
the Examiner erred. We adopt as our own the findings and reasons set forth
in the rejections from which the appeal is taken and in the Examiner’s
Answer, and provide the following for highlighting and emphasis.
Claims 1, 9, 12, 17, and 18
Appellants argue the foregoing claims as a group, App. Br. 6, and we
choose claim 1 as representative of the group. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Appellants contend “the claimed invention has a different
functionality [than the cited prior art] on a number of different levels.” App.
Br. 7; see also Reply Br. 2. Specifically, Appellants argue “neither
3
Appeal 2016-004482
Application 13/495,877
Manjeshwar [nor] Almgren et al. detect jamming of uplink signals among
wireless detectors,” and neither reference “has the ability to detect the locale
of the interfering radio frequency source via the locale of a wireless device
whose signals cannot be detected.” Id. These arguments, however, do not
persuade us of error because they do not rely on the language of the claims.
As the Examiner finds, claim 1 does not “require detecting jamming
or notifying of jamming in a particular direction, downlink or uplink” as
Appellants argue. Ans. 18. Rather, the claim recites “wireless detector
transmitting a packet notifying the control panel of jamming.’ '’ App. Br. 12
(emphasis added). Moreover, we discern no error in the Examiner’s finding
that, contrary to Appellants’ argument, Manjeshwar teaches (at col. 40,11.
25—30) “reporting of detected jamming by the [user equipment] to the base
station” and Almgren teaches (at 140) “reporting of detected downlink
jamming over an uplink channel.” Ans. 18. Similarly, claim 1 does not
recite detecting the “locale” of interfering frequency as Appellants argue.
Ans. 19.
Appellants further argue the Examiner erred in finding a “reason,
suggestion or motivation” for combining Manjeshwar and Almgren. App.
Br. 8—9. As the Examiner finds, however, the references are in the same
field of endeavor as Appellants’ invention, and are directed to the same
problem or objective, i.e., detecting and overcoming jamming in a wireless
communications network. Ans. 20—21; Almgren || 39-40; Manjeshwar col.
40,1. 25—col. 41,1. 27; see Innovention Toys LLC v. MGA Entertainment
Inc., 637 F.3d 1314, 1322—23 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (finding sufficient basis for
combining references that share the “same purpose,” “goal,” or “objective”).
We, therefore, are not persuaded of error.
4
Appeal 2016-004482
Application 13/495,877
For the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness rejection of
claims 1,9, 12, 17, and 18.
Remaining Claims
Appellants do not argue the remaining claims separately. App. Br. 2.
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the obviousness
rejections of the remaining claims.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1—20.
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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.50(f).
AFFIRMED
5