Ex Parte Anderson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2017

13405983 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 21, 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.
13/405,983 02/27/2012 Nicholas William ANDERSON 378233US8X CONT 6460
22850 7590 06/23/2017
OBLON, MCCLELLAND, MAIER & NEUSTADT, L.L.P.
1940 DUKE STREET
ALEXANDRIA, VA 22314
EXAMINER
DANIEL JR, WILLIE J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2462
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
06/23/2017 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):
patentdocket @ oblon. com
oblonpat @ oblon. com
tfarrell@oblon.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte NICHOLAS WILLIAM ANDERSON
Appeal 2016-000630
Application 13/405,9831
Technology Center 2400
Before ROBERT E. NAPPI, CARL W. WHITEHEAD JR., and
SHARON FENICK, Administrative Patent Judges.
NAPPI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Final
Rejection of claims 1 through 22. We have jurisdiction over the pending
claims under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to a method for use in a cellular
communication system where the base station combines user equipment
specific information, such as power control commands, encodes the
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is Sony Corporation.
App. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-000630
Application 13/405,983
combined user specific information, and transmits it to the user equipment.
Abstract.
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is illustrative of the invention and reproduced below:
1. A user equipment for receiving user equipment
specific information from a base station in a cellular
communication system, the user equipment comprising:
a receiver that receives encoded combined user
equipment specific information for at least two of a plurality of
user equipment and that receives by another transmission an
indication which indicates position information to assist each
user equipment of the at least two of a plurality of user
equipment determine its own user equipment specific
information from within the combined user equipment specific
information transmitted by a transmitter; and
a processor that determines user specific information for
the user equipment from the encoded combined user equipment
specific information based on the indication.
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 12 and 15 through 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Cao (US 6,647,005 Bl; iss. Nov. 11,
2003), Ozluturk (US 7,710,927 B2; iss. May 4, 2010), and Sakoda
(7,061,888 B2; iss. June 13, 2006). Answer 3—14.2
2 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 10,
2015 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief filed September 17, 2015 (“Reply Br.”),
the Final Office Action mailed September 10, 2014 (Final Act.”), and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 17, 2015 (“Answer”).
2
Appeal 2016-000630
Application 13/405,983
The Examiner rejected claims 13 and 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Cao, Ozluturk, Sakoda and Kim (US 7,450,611 B2, iss. Nov.
11, 2008). Answer 14—15.
ISSUES
Appellant argues, on pages 8 through 17 of the Appeal Brief and 1
through 6 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1 and 22 is in error. Appellant’s arguments present us with the
following issues:
1. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Cao,
Ozluturk, and Sakoda teaches encoding combined user
equipment specific information as recited in claim 1?
2. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Cao,
Ozluturk, and Sakoda teaches receiving by another transmission
an indication which indicates position information as recited in
claim 1?
3. Did the Examiner err in finding that the combination of Cao,
Ozluturk, and Sakoda teaches a processor that determines user
specific information for the user equipment from the encoded
combined user equipment information, as recited in claim 22?
Appellant’s arguments, on page 17 of the Appeal Brief, directed to the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 13 and 14 assert that the rejection is in error
for the same reasons as representative claim 1.
3
Appeal 2016-000630
Application 13/405,983
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contention that the Examiner has erred. Further, we have reviewed the
Examiner’s response to Appellant’s arguments. We concur with the
Examiner’s conclusion of unpatentability.
Issue 1
Appellant asserts that Cao does not teach encoding combined user
equipment specific information. App. Br. 9—10. Specifically, Appellant
argues Cao teaches that each packet includes an extend power control field
that contains information for all users on a transmission, but does not teach
combining user equipment specific information and encoding the
information. App. Br. 9—10 (citing Cao, col. 4,11. 30—33, 54—56). Further,
Appellant cites to the Declaration of Dr. Subramaniam who concludes that
Cao does not describe encoding user equipment information. Id. at 10
(citing paragraph 12 of Dr. Subramaniam’s Declaration). Additionally,
Appellant argues that Ozluturk merely teaches Forward Error Correction
(FEC), but not that FEC is applied at the physical layer to combine user
equipment information. Id. at 14—15. Appellant presents similar arguments
with respect to Sakoda. Id. at 15.
The Examiner finds that Cao teaches transmitting user equipment
specific power control information from a base station to the user equipment
where the base station combines and multiplexes the information for all
users into the TPC field. Answer 4. We concur with the Examiner. Cao
teaches the power control field of every slot (regardless if the slot is assigned
to a particular user) contains power control information for each user. See
4
Appeal 2016-000630
Application 13/405,983
col. 4,11. 30—33, and col. 4,11. 54—58, see also Figs. 8—10. This is consistent
with paragraph 10 of Dr. Subramaniam’s Declaration. However, Dr.
Subramaniam’s statement in paragraph 12, that “Cao does not describe in
which packet of which slot within the DTCH fame the power control
information for individual mobile stations is to be included” appears to be at
odds with the teachings of Cao. As seen in Cao Figures 1 and 8 through 10,
each packet in the DTCH has a DPCCH field that contains a TPC field (see
Fig. 1), and each packet’s TPC field includes the TPC information for all
users. See Fig. 8. Thus, we find there is sufficient evidence to support the
Examiner’s finding that Cao teaches combined user equipment specific
information (i.e., the power control information for multiple users is
combined into the TPC field).
The Examiner relies upon Ozluturk to teach encoding and finds that it
would be obvious to apply such encoding to the combined power control
data. Answer 5—6. We concur. Appellant’s arguments address the
teachings of Cao and Ozluturk, individually, identifying that they do not
teach applying FEC to the combined power control data. Dr.
Subramaniam’s Declaration, paragraphs 12 and 19 similarly address whether
the references individually teach encoding the combined power control data.
We do not find Appellant’s arguments and the Declaration persuasive of
error in the Examiner’s rejection, as it is the combined teachings of the
references that are applied to rejecting the claims and the arguments and
Declaration address the references individually. Here, the Examiner has
shown that it is known to combine user equipment specific information for
transmission and that it was known to apply encoding to transmissions from
the base station to the user equipment. We consider encoding the expanded
5
Appeal 2016-000630
Application 13/405,983
TPC field of Cao to be application of known principles to their known
functions.
Issue 2
With respect to the second issue, Appellant argues that Cao does not
teach transmitting/receiving an indication that indicates position information
in another transmission. App. Br. 10—13. Appellant asserts that Cao’s User
Packet Flag (UPF), shown in Figure 5, indicates whether or not there is data
for each mobile station in the DTCH frame and does not convey position
information. App. Br. 11. Appellant states, “[t]hat is, Cao describes
that each mobile station already knows the position (time slot) in which each
mobile station is assigned for the reception of power control information.”
App. Bril. Further, Appellant argues the UPF is not in another
transmission as claimed. App. Br. 15—12. Appellant cites to the Declaration
of Dr. Subramaniam, paragraphs 13 through 15.
The Examiner finds Cao teaches the transmission information being
provided in another transmission. The Examiner cites to Cao’s UPF to
support this finding. Answer 19. Based upon Appellant’s arguments, we
agree with the Examiner that Cao teaches this feature, however, we disagree
with the Examiner that the UPF is the transmission that provides the position
information, but rather find that it is evidence that there is another
transmission that provides the position information. Specifically, Cao
teaches that each user equipment has a field in the UPF, and also a field in
the TPC (see, e.g., UPF of Fig. 5, and col. 3,11. 44^47 which discusses an
example where there are 15 user devices and 15 fields, and the TPC of Fig. 8
and col. 4,11. 43—50, which discusses an example where there are 8 user
devices). As admitted by Appellant, “Cao describes that each mobile station
6
Appeal 2016-000630
Application 13/405,983
already knows the position (time slot) in which each mobile station is
assigned for the reception of power control information.” App. Br. 11 (the
“time slot” which contains the PCI in Appellant’s argument is referred to in
Cao as a field and it appears to be communicated in the initialization stage
discussed in the paragraph bridging cols. 2—3 of Cao).3 As is apparent from
Cao’s Figure 1, the DTCH only contains a UPF and a series of packets, as
Appellant argues the UPF does not contain the position information. Thus,
it would be apparent to the skilled artisan that the assignments of fields for
the individual user equipment comes via a transmission other than the
DTCH, and as such, the claimed another transmission which provides
indication of position is obvious in light of the teachings or suggestions of
Cao. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments directed to the second issue have
not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection.
Issue 3
With respect to the third issue, Appellant argues that Cao does not
teach a processor that determines information for the specific user
equipment from the encoded user specific information and the indication of
position as recited in claim 22. App. Br. 13—14. Appellant reasons that the
UPF of Cao does not include position information and, thus, the processor of
Cao’s mobile station does not determine the user specific information as
claimed. App. Br. 13—14.
3 We note the Declaration of Dr. Subramaniam only discusses the
application of the UPF as the claimed another transmission and not of
evidence that another transmission occurs.
7
Appeal 2016-000630
Application 13/405,983
We are not persuaded of error by Appellant’s arguments directed to
the third issue. These arguments are premised upon the assertion discussed
above with respect to the first and second issue, which we did not find
persuasive of error.
Appellant’s arguments directed to the rejection of claims 1 through 12
and 15 through 22 as obvious over Cao, Ozluturk, and Sakoda, have not
persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of these claims.
Appellant argues the rejection of claims 13 and 14 as obvious over
Cao, Ozluturk, Sakoda and Kim is in error for the same reasons as discussed
with respect to claim 1 and that the additional references don’t make up for
the deficiencies in the rejection of claim 1. App. Br. 17. As discussed
above, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1, accordingly,
we similarly sustain these rejections by the Examiner.
DECISION
The decision of the Examiner to reject claims 1 through 22 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).
AFFIRMED
8