Ex Parte Anderson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2017

14043540 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 14, 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.
14/043,540 10/01/2013 Nicholas William ANDERSON 421386US8SHCONTTRACKI 1073
22850 7590 02/16/2017
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
02/16/2017 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 2016-005649
Application 14/043,5401
Technology Center 2400
Before JOHN A. JEFFERY, NORMAN H. BEAMER, and
MATTHEW J. McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judges.
McNEILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-20, which are all the claims pending in this application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.
1 According to Appellant, the real party in interest is SONY
CORPORATION. Br. 2.
Appeal 2016-005649
Application 14/043,540
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Introduction
Appellant’s application relates to communicating user equipment
specific information, such as power control and synchronization data, in a
cellular communication system. Spec. 1:14-16. Claim 1 is illustrative of
the appealed subject matter and reads as follows:
1. An electronic device comprising:
processing circuitry configured to receive, in a first
transmission, an encoded combined user equipment specific
information, in a single time slot for a plurality of user
equipment on a common physical control channel so that
respective of the plurality of user equipment can perform power
control using the combined user equipment specific information
received in the single time slot;
decode the encoded combined user equipment specific
information by performing forward error correction decoding;
and
receive, in a second transmission different from the first
transmission, an indication which indicates flexibly assigned
position information to assist respective individual user
equipment in determining a location of user equipment specific
information for corresponding individual user equipment from
within the encoded combined user equipment specific
information.
The Examiner’s Rejections
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-16, and 18-20 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Cao et al. (US 6,647,005 Bl; Nov. 11, 2003),
Ozluturk (US 7,710,927 B2; May 4, 2010), Hulbert (US 7,050,481 Bl; May
23, 2006), and Sakoda (US 7,061,888 B2; June 13, 2006). Final Act. 9-17.
2
Appeal 2016-005649
Application 14/043,540
Claims 2, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cao, Ozluturk, Hulbert, Sakoda, and Sung et al. (US
2002/0191569 Al; Dec. 19,2002). Final Act. 17-18.
ANALYSIS
We have reviewed the Examiner’s rejections in light of Appellant’s
contentions that the Examiner has erred. We disagree with Appellant’s
contentions. Except as noted below, we adopt as our own: (1) the findings
and reasons set forth by the Examiner in the action from which this appeal is
taken and (2) the reasons set forth by the Examiner in the Examiner’s
Answer in response to Appellant’s Appeal Brief. We concur with the
conclusions reached by the Examiner. We highlight the following additional
points.
“encoded combined user equipment specific information ”
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Cao teaches or
suggests processor circuitry configured to receive “encoded combined user
equipment specific information,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 10-12. In
particular, Appellant argues Cao does not teach combining user equipment
specific information or encoding such information, instead teaching a DTCH
frame with multiple time slots, including slots for power control
information. Br. 12. Appellant cites the declaration of Dr. Subramaniam,
who opines Cao does not describe encoding the TPC commands within a
single packet and the TPC commands for all mobile stations are not included
in each packet with a fewer number of bits than a total number of bits. Decl.
of Dr. Suresh Subramaniam (“Decl.”) at 112.
3
Appeal 2016-005649
Application 14/043,540
Appellant has not persuaded us of Examiner error. The Examiner
finds, and we agree, Cao teaches a DTCH frame that includes sixteen slots—
the first slot contains a UPF packet and the remaining 15 slots contain TPC
packets with an extended field containing power control information for all
users (the claimed “combined user equipment specific information”). Ans.
18-19. Indeed, Appellant admits Cao teaches an extended TPC field that
includes information for all users. See Br. 10. Although Cao does not teach
forward error encoding of the TPC information (see Br. 10-11, Decl. ]Hf 8,
11), the Examiner does not rely on Cao for this teaching, instead relying on
Ozluturk and Hulbert. Final Act. 11-12. One cannot show nonobviousness
by attacking references individually when the rejection is based on a
combination of references. In re Merck & Co. Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097
(Fed. Cir. 1986); see also In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981).
Accordingly, Appellant has not persuaded us the Examiner erred in finding
Cao teaches or suggests processor circuitry configured to “encoded
combined user equipment specific information.”
“flexibly assigned position information ”
Appellant further argues Cao does not teach or suggest “flexibly
assigned position information,” as recited in claim 1. Br. 12-13.
Specifically, Appellant argues Cao teaches the UPF packet merely includes
information indicating whether there is information in a time slot assigned to
a specific user equipment, not information as to the position of the
information. Id. (citing Cao 3:46-66).
As a matter of claim construction, we apply the broadest reasonable
interpretation of claim terms, consistent with the specification, as would be
understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Am. Acad, of Sci. Tech
4
Appeal 2016-005649
Application 14/043,540
Ctr., 367 F.3d 1359, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (citations omitted). “Above all,
the broadest reasonable interpretation must be reasonable in light of the
claims and specification.” PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical
Commc’ns RF, LLC, 815 F.3d 747, 755 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (emphasis in
original).
Appellant’s Specification states that “position information” may be an
“associative and/or indirect indication” of the position. Spec. 8:15-17. “For
example, the position information may be related to other system or UE
parameters, and from knowledge of these system or UE parameters, the
position of data from a specific UE may be determined.” Spec. 16:4-7.
Accordingly, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “position
information” is not limited to information that explicitly states the precise
position of the user equipment specific information; instead, the position
information may indirectly provide this information using other parameters.
Applying this broadest reasonable interpretation of “position
information,” Appellant’s argument is unpersuasive because Cao’s UPF
packet provides information indicating to a specific user equipment whether
a previously assigned position within the TPC field contains information for
that user equipment. Cao 3:46-66. In other words, Cao’s UPF packet
provides indirect, associative position information, and this falls within the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term in light of the Specification.
“a second transmission different from the first transmission ”
Appellant also argues the Examiner erred in finding Cao teaches or
suggests “a second transmission different from the first transmission,” as
recited in claim 1. Br. 13-14. In particular, Appellant argues Cao teaches
transmitting a single DTCH frame that includes both the UPF (in the first
5
Appeal 2016-005649
Application 14/043,540
time slot) and the TPC commands (in the remaining time slots). Br. 13
(citing Cao 3:20-22). Appellant argues the position information is,
therefore, in the same transmission as the encoded combined user equipment
specific information, rather than a second, different transmission as recited
in claim 1. Id.
This issue turns on the broadest reasonable interpretation of “a second
transmission different from the first transmission.” Regarding
transmissions, the Specification uses the term “minimum transmission
resource unit” to refer to the smallest data block or unit that can be
transmitted individually. Spec. 10:29-31. For example, in accordance with
the 3GPP TDD system, this unit may be a time slot. Spec. 10:31-33; see
also Spec. 5:22-23, 14:24-27. The Specification explains that position
information may be transmitted in the minimum transmission resource unit
that contains the combined user equipment specific information or by
“another transmission.” Spec. 15:29-32.
In light of the Specification, the broadest reasonable interpretation of
“a second transmission different from the first transmission,” as recited in
claim 1, includes a second time slot (i.e., a second minimum transmission
resource unit) different from the first time slot that contains the combined
user equipment specific information. Because “transmission” may refer to a
single time slot under this broadest reasonable interpretation, Cao’s teaching
that the UPF and TPC information are contained in separate time slots (Cao
3:20-22) satisfies the claimed “second transmission” limitation.
Secondary References
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding the cited references
other than Cao remedy the deficiencies of Cao. Br. 15-18. Specifically,
6
Appeal 2016-005649
Application 14/043,540
Appellant argues “Ozluturk does not describe or reasonably suggest
applying FEC [forward error correction] to a TPC command or to combined
user equipment specific information, and Ozluturk does not describe or
reasonably suggest processing circuitry configured to receive encoded
combined user equipment specific information.’ '' Br. 15-16. Appellant also
argues “Hulbert does not describe performing forward error correction
(FEC) upon TPC data.” Br. 16-17. Finally, Appellant argues “Sakoda does
not describe or reasonably suggest receiving, in a second transmission
different from the first transmission, an indication which indicates flexibly
assigned position information, as claimed.” Br. 17-18.
Appellant’s arguments for each of these references are unpersuasive
because they attack the references individually, rather than the combination
of references as a whole. In each instance, Appellant focuses on the failure
of the reference to teach limitations for which the Examiner relies on Cao,
instead of alleging a deficiency in the Examiner’s finding related to that
reference. For example, Appellant acknowledges Hulbert teaches
performing forward error correction encoding (FEC), but argues Hulbert
does not perform FEC upon TPC data. Br. 16. However, the Examiner does
not rely on Hulbert for applying encoding to TPC data, instead relying on
Cao and the combination of the references to teach this limitation. Final
Act. 11-12. We, therefore, find this argument, like the arguments related to
Ozluturk and Sakoda, to be unpersuasive.
For these reasons and on this record, Appellant has not persuaded us
the Examiner erred in rejecting independent claim 1 as unpatentable over the
combination of Cao, Ozluturk, Hulbert, and Sakoda. We, therefore, sustain
the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of independent claim
7
Appeal 2016-005649
Application 14/043,540
9, which Appellant argues for the same reasons as claim 1 (Br. 18), and
dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20, which Appellant has not argued separately
(Br. 18-19).
DECISION
We affirm the decision of the Examiner to reject 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)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
8