Ex Parte Anderson

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Jun 21, 2017

13715507 (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.
13/715,507 12/14/2012 Nicholas William Anderson 407699US8X CONT 3617
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 2015-008246
Application 13/715,5071
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 34. 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. 1.
Appeal 2015-008246
Application 13/715,507
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. An apparatus for transmitting user equipment
specific update transmit power control information from a base
station to a user equipment in a cellular communication system,
the apparatus comprising:
a processor that combines user equipment specific update
transmit power control information for a plurality of user
equipment to generate combined user equipment specific
update transmit power control information;
an encode processor that encodes the combined user
equipment specific update transmit power control information
for at least two of the plurality of user equipment, wherein
forward error correction coding is applied to the combined user
equipment specific update transmit power control information
for the plurality of user equipment; and
a transmitter that transmits the encoded combined user
equipment specific update transmit power control information
in a common physical control channel received by the plurality
of user equipment, and transmits by another transmission an
indication which indicates position information, wherein
transmitting the encoded combined user equipment specific
information from the base station provides the plurality of user
equipment with the update power control information so each
of the plurality of user equipment performs power control using
the update power control information provided in the encoded
combined user equipment specific update transmit power
control information that was transmitted.
2
Appeal 2015-008246
Application 13/715,507
REJECTIONS AT ISSUE
The Examiner rejected claims 1 through 10, and 13 through 34 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), Hulbert
(US 7,050,481 Bl; iss. May 23, 2006), and Sakoda (7,061,888 B2; iss. June
13,2006). Answer 3-24.2
The Examiner rejected claims 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
obvious over Cao, Ozluturk, Hulbert, Sakoda and Kim (7,450,611). Answer
25-26.
The Examiner rejected claims 1, 24, and 26 through 28 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as obvious over Cao, Ozluturk, Hulbert, and Hagerman
(6,539,010 Bl; iss. Mar. 25, 2003). Answer 26—32.
ISSUES
Appellant argues, on pages 10 through 24 of the Appeal Brief and 1
through 7 of the Reply Brief that the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claims 1, 24, 26, 27 and 28 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, Hulbert, 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, Hulbert, and Sakoda teaches receiving by another
2 Throughout this Opinion we refer to the Appeal Brief filed February 19,
2015 (“App. Br.”), the Reply Brief filed September 17, 2015 (“Reply Br.”),
the Final Office Action mailed August 19, 2014 (Final Act.”), and the
Examiner’s Answer mailed July 17, 2015 (“Answer”).
3
Appeal 2015-008246
Application 13/715,507
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, Hulbert, 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 24?
Appellant’s arguments, on page 25 of the Appeal Brief, directed to the
Examiner’s rejection of claims 11 and 12 assert that the rejection is in error
for the same reasons as representative claim 1.
Appellant’s arguments directed to the rejection based on Cao,
Ozluturk, Hulbert and Hagerman, on page 25 of the Appeal Brief, assert the
additional teaching of Hagerman does not teach an encoding combined user
specific information and transmitting information, in another transmission,
directed to position information as recited in independent claims.
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. 15 through 17. Specifically,
Appellant argues Cao teaches that each packet includes an extend power
control field that contains information for all users on a transmission, but
4
Appeal 2015-008246
Application 13/715,507
does not teach combining user equipment specific information and encoding
the information. App. Br. 15—16 (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. atl6 (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 21. Appellant presents similar
arguments with respect to Hulbert and Sakoda. Id. at 22—24.
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 3. 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
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
5
Appeal 2015-008246
Application 13/715,507
information (i.e., the power control information for multiple users is
combined into the TPC field).
The Examiner relies upon Ozluturk and Hulbert to teach encoding
using forward error correction and finds that it would be obvious to apply
such encoding to the combined power control data. Answer 6. We concur.
Appellant’s arguments address the teaching of Cao, Ozluturk, and Hulbert
individually, identifying that they do not teach applying FEC to the
combined power control data. Dr. Subramaniam’s Declaration, paragraphs
12, 19, and 23 similarly address whether the references individually teach
applying FEC to 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 FEC to transmissions from the base station to the user
equipment. We consider applying the FEC to the expanded 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. 17—20. 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. 17. Appellant states, “[tjhat is, Cao describes
6
Appeal 2015-008246
Application 13/715,507
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. Br 17. Further, Appellant argues the UPF is not in another
transmission as claimed. App. Br. 18—20. 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 for
providing to support this finding. Answer 37. 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 positon 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 already knows the position (time slot) in which each
mobile station is assigned for the reception of power control information.”
App. Br. 17 (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
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 2015-008246
Application 13/715,507
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
positon as recited in claim 24. App. Br. 20—21. 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. 20.
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
10, and 13 through 34 as obvious over Cao, Ozluturk, Hulbert, and Sakoda,
have not persuaded us of error in the Examiner’s rejection, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of these claims.
8
Appeal 2015-008246
Application 13/715,507
Appellant argues the rejections of claims 11 and 12 as obvious over
Cao, Ozluturk, Hulbert, Sakoda and Kim; and claims 1, 24, and 26 through
28 as obvious over Cao, Ozluturk, Hulbert, and Hagerman, are 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. 25. 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 34 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
9