Ex Parte Anderson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 14, 2017

14043410 (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.
14/043,410 10/01/2013 Nicholas William ANDERSON 421378US8SHCONTTRACK 4295
I
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 2016-005646
Application 14/043,4101
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 2016-005646
Application 14/043,410
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 combine user
equipment specific information for a plurality of user
equipment to generate combined user equipment specific
information, the combined user equipment specific information
having a fewer number of bits than a total number of bits of the
user equipment specific information for the plurality of user
equipment;
encode the combined user equipment specific
information by forward error correction coding to generate
encoded combined user equipment specific information;
transmit, in a first transmission, the encoded combined
user equipment specific information within a single time slot of
a common physical control channel, wherein the encoded
combined user equipment specific information within the time
slot is used by the plurality of user equipment to perform power
control; and
transmit, 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 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),
2
Appeal 2016-005646
Application 14/043,410
Minowa (US 7,103,029 Bl; Sept. 5, 2006), 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. 10-18.
Claims 2, 10, and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cao, Minowa, Ozluturk, Hulbert, Sakoda, and Sung et al.
(US 2002/0191569 Al; Dec. 19, 2002). Final Act. 19-20.
Claims 1 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cao, Tiedemann, Jr. (US 7,286,499 B2; Oct. 23, 2007),
Ozluturk, Hulbert, and Sakoda. Final Act. 20-25.
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.
“encode the combined user equipment specific information ”
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in finding Cao teaches or
suggests processor circuitry configured to “encode the combined user
specific information by forward error correction coding to generate encoded
combined user equipment specific information,” as recited in claim 1. Br.
12-13. In particular, Appellant argues Cao does not teach combining user
equipment specific information or encoding such information, instead
3
Appeal 2016-005646
Application 14/043,410
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. Deck of Dr. Suresh Subramaniam, | 12.
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.
23-24. Indeed, Appellant admits that Cao teaches an extended TPC field
that includes information for all users. See Br. 12. Although Cao does not
teach forward error encoding of the TPC information (see Br. 12-13, Deck
8, 11), the Examiner does not rely on Cao for this teaching, instead
relying on Ozluturk and Hulbert. Final Act. 13-14. 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 “encode
the combined user specific information by forward error correction coding to
generate 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. 13-14.
4
Appeal 2016-005646
Application 14/043,410
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
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
5
Appeal 2016-005646
Application 14/043,410
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. 14-15. In particular, Appellant argues Cao teaches
transmitting a single DTCH frame that includes both the UPF (in the first
time slot) and the TPC commands (in the remaining time slots). Br. 14
(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.” Discussing
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
“anothertransmission.” 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
6
Appeal 2016-005646
Application 14/043,410
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. 16-20. Specifically,
Appellant argues Minowa does not teach or suggest “combined information
that has a fewer number of bits than a total number of bits of the
information.” Br. 16-17. 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 transmitting/receiving encoded
combined user equipment specific information.'''’ Br. 17-18. Appellant also
argues “Hulbert does not describe performing forward error correction
(FEC) upon TPC data.” Br. 19. Finally, Appellant argues “Sakoda does not
describe or reasonably suggest transmitting, in a second transmission
different from the first transmission, an indication which indicates flexibly
assigned position information, as claimed.” Br. 20.
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 that Minowa teaches
encoding information having “a fewer number of bits than a total number of
7
Appeal 2016-005646
Application 14/043,410
bits,” but Appellant argues Minowa does not apply such encoding to
combined user equipment specific information. Br. 16-17. However, the
Examiner does not rely on Minowa for this limitation, instead relying on
Cao and the combination of the references to teach this limitation. Final
Act. 12-13. We, therefore, find this argument, like the arguments related to
Ozluturk, Hulbert, 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, Minowa, Ozluturk, Hulbert, and Sakoda. We,
therefore, sustain the rejection of claim 1. We also sustain the rejection of
independent claim 9, which Appellant argues for the same reasons as claim 1
(Br. 20), and dependent claims 2-8 and 10-20, which Appellant has not
argued separately (Br. 20-22).
Appellant argues the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 and 9 as
unpatentable over Cao, Tiedemann, Ozluturk, Hulbert, and Sakoda for the
same reasons as the rejection that includes Minowa in place of Tiedemann.
We, therefore, sustain this rejection for the reasons set forth above.
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