Ex Parte Agrawal

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2013

11077751 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
________________

Ex parte AVNEESH AGRAWAL
________________

Appeal 2010-004704
Application 11/077,751
Technology Center 2400
________________

Before DENISE M. POTHIER, ERIC B. CHEN, and
STANLEY M. WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judges.

WEINBERG, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-004704
Application 11/077,751

2
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-35. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
Claims 1-35 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over
Das (EP 1 351 538 A1; Oct. 8, 2003) in view of Suzuki (US 4,868,811; Sept.
19, 1989).1

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant’s invention involves a shared signaling channel capable of
carrying various types of signaling for terminals in a multiple-access
communication system. The shared signaling channel has multiple
segments. Each terminal is mapped to one or more segments and signaling
messages for the terminal are sent on the segments. A mapper receives
messages to be sent on the shared signaling channel, identifies the recipient
terminals, and determines the segment in which to send the message. See
generally Spec. ¶¶ 0007, 0027, 0048; Figs. 2, 3.
Independent claim 1 is illustrative with key disputed limitations
emphasized:
1. An apparatus in a multiple-access communication
system, comprising:
a mapper operative to receive signaling for a plurality of
terminals and to map signaling for each terminal to at least one
segment among a plurality of segments of a signaling channel;
a processor operative to process signaling mapped to
each segment and to generate output data for the segment; and

1 Throughout this opinion, we refer to: (1) the Appeal Brief filed June 22,
2009; (2) the Examiner’s Answer mailed October 7, 2009; and (3) the Reply
Brief filed December 4, 2009.
Appeal 2010-004704
Application 11/077,751

3
a multiplexer operative to multiplex the output data for
each segment onto system resources allocated for the segment.

THE CONTENTIONS
The Examiner finds that Das teaches the “mapper” and “multiplexer”
limitations in representative claim 1. Ans. 3-4, 12.
Appellant contends that Das fails to teach a mapper, mapping
signaling for each terminal to at least one segment among a plurality of
segments of a signaling channel, and a multiplexer operative to multiplex the
output data for each segment onto system resources allocated for the
segment. App. Br. 6-9; Reply Br. 2-3.

ISSUES
Under § 103, has the Examiner erred by finding that Das teaches:
(1) a mapper operative to receive signaling for a plurality of
terminals and to map signaling for each terminal to at least one segment
among a plurality of segments of a signaling channel?
(2) a multiplexer operative to multiplex the output data for each
segment onto system resources allocated for the segment?

ANALYSIS
WHETHER DAS TEACHES A MAPPER
Das teaches a HS-SCCH (High-Speed Shared Control Channel) that is
“used for transmitting signaling information that is needed for the UE [(user
equipment)] to process the corresponding data transmission.” Das ¶ 0004, ll.
1-2. The Examiner finds that the HS-SCCH “read[s] on a mapper which is
hardware for constructing signaling messages.” Ans. 4:1-2.
Appeal 2010-004704
Application 11/077,751

4
Appellant contends that Das does not teach or suggest the use of a
mapper because (1) although Das teaches message formats for signaling
messages having information, it fails to teach or suggest a methodology for
constructing the signaling messages; and (2) it fails to illustrate hardware for
a mapper, a flowchart describing how messages are generated, and the
hardware used for constructing signaling messages. App. Br. 7:1-8.
However, the Examiner further finds that the HS-SCCH reads on a
mapper because it is used to transport signaling information for a plurality of
UE and that the hardware for constructing the signaling is inherent. Ans.
12:2-6. Appellant’s Reply Brief does not contest these further findings,
which are consistent with Appellant’s explanation that his mapper identifies
a recipient terminal of a message, determines the segment in which to send
the message based on the recipient terminal, and forwards the message.
Spec. ¶ 0048, ll. 6-8.
We agree with the Examiner. Appellant’s arguments are not
persuasive because an ordinarily skilled artisan would have recognized that
Das uses hardware or software of some kind to create and transmit messages
and signaling information, as disclosed in Das. Moreover, if Appellant is
suggesting that Das is not enabled, the suggestion is not persuasive because
materials in patents and in non-patent publications are presumptively
enabling barring any showing to the contrary by a patent applicant. In re
Antor Media Corp., 689 F.3d 1282, 1287-88 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner that Das teaches a mapper.
Appeal 2010-004704
Application 11/077,751

5
WHETHER DAS TEACHES A MAPPER OPERATIVE TO MAP
SIGNALING FOR EACH TERMINAL TO AT LEAST ONE SEGMENT
AMONG A PLURALITY OF SEGMENTS OF A SIGNALING CHANNEL
We begin by construing claim 1’s recitation of “a signaling channel.”
Appellant describes his signaling channel as a channel that may carry
various types of signaling such as resource/channel assignments and access
grants (indicating grant of system access for a terminal). Spec. ¶ 0073, ll. 1-
2, 10. A resource/channel assignment message contains a channel identifier
for each assigned physical channel and modulation scheme to use for data
transmission. Spec. ¶ 0076, ll. 6-10.
With this construction, we find no error in the Examiner’s reliance on
Das’s paragraph 0026 and Figure 5(a) to teach mapping to each segment and
segments of a signaling channel which are mapped for each UE. Ans. 4:3-5;
12:9-10. Das’s discussion of its Figure 5(a) states that its Part 1 message
portion includes channelization code, modulation, and UE ID information
for all UEs receiving a transmission. Das ¶ 0026, ll. 3-5. More specifically,
Figure 5(a) includes UE ID segments 510 and 530, as well as channelization
and modulation code segments 520 and 540. Das ¶ 0027, ll. 1-3; Fig. 5(a).
Appellant contends that Das does not teach a plurality of segments of
a signaling channel because Das uses the term “segment” to describe a sub-
section of a message, instead of portion of a shared signaling channel. App.
Br. 7:11–8:2; Reply Br. 2:25-26; 3:6-7. Appellant’s argument is not
persuasive because, as indicated above, the device in Das’s Figure 5(a)
transmits more than just message information and performs many of the
same functions as Appellant’s signaling channel. Compare Das’s
channelization code with Appellant’s channel identifier; Das’s modulation
information with Appellant’s modulation scheme; and Das’s UE ID
Appeal 2010-004704
Application 11/077,751

6
information with Appellant’s access grants indicating grant of system access
for a terminal. Moreover, claim 1 does not require that the signal channel be
shared (see App. Br. 7), and the recited phrase, “at least one segment among
a plurality of segments of a signaling channel” as broadly as recited, can
include all segments of signal channel.
Accordingly, we agree with the Examiner than Das teaches mapping
signaling for each terminal to at least one segment among a plurality of
segments of a signaling channel.
WHETHER DAS TEACHES A PROCESSOR OPERATIVE TO PROCESS
SIGNALING MAPPED TO EACH SEGEMNT AND TO GENERATE
OUTPUT DATA FOR THE SEGMENT.
Appellant contends that Das does not teach this limitation because
Das does not teach a mapper. App. Br. 8:10-14; Reply Br. 3:6-9.
This argument is not persuasive for the reasons discussed above
regarding Das’s mapper.
WHETHER DAS TEACHES A MULTIPLEXER OPERATIVE TO
MULTIPLEX THE OUTPUT DATA FOR EACH SEGMENT ONTO
SYSTEM RESOURCES ALLOCATED FOR THE SEGMENT
The Examiner finds that Das’s composite signaling message including
at least two segments providing information on a control channel to a
different UE reads on multiplexing. Ans. 4:6-9. The Examiner also finds
that because multiplexing data is inherent in wireless communication, the
segments of the signaling channel shown in Das’s Figure 2 are multiplexed
by a multiplexer. Ans. 12:17-19. The Examiner also finds that Das teaches
Appeal 2010-004704
Application 11/077,751

7
multiplexing because it states that signaling messages are generated for
transmission over one or more shared control channels. Ans. 12:19-21.2
Appellant’s nominal assertions that Das does not teach multiplexing
(App. Br. 9:7-8; Reply Br. 3:6-8) are not persuasive because Appellant has
not presented evidence that rebuts the Examiner’s findings. Appellant’s
additional assertion (App. Br. 9:10-12) that Das does not teach Appellant’s
multiplexing because Appellant claims multiplexing output data which
comprises information fields and a CRC field is not persuasive because the
claims do not contain such recitations.
APPELLANT’S DISCUSSION OF SUZUKI
Appellant’s discussion of Suzuki is also not persuasive because
Appellant argues Suzuki individually. App. Br. 9:14-15; Reply Br. 3:10.
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually
where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We are therefore not persuaded that the Examiner erred in rejecting
(1) representative claim 1; (2) claims 12, 19, 24, 28, and 32 for similar
reasons; and (3) claims 2-11, 13-18, and 20-23, 25-27, 29-31, and 33-35 not
separately argued with particularity.
Accordingly, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1-35.

CONCLUSION
Under § 103, the Examiner did not err in rejecting claims 1-35.

2 The Examiner’s citation to paragraph 0025 was apparently intended to cite
paragraph 0020, lines 1-2.
Appeal 2010-004704
Application 11/077,751

8

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-35 is 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). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv) (2010).

AFFIRMED

babc