Ex Parte Aydin et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Dec 27, 2016

12638147 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 27, 2016)

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.
12/638,147 12/15/2009 Osman Aydin LUTZ 201092US01 4545
48116 7590 12/29/2016
FAY STTARPF/T TTf’F.NT
EXAMINER
1228 Euclid Avenue, 5th Floor SHIVERS, ASHLEY L
The Halle Building
Cleveland, OH 44115-1843 ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
2477
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
12/29/2016 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):
docketing @ faysharpe.com
ipsnarocp @ nokia. com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte OSMAN AYDIN and STEPHEN KAMINSKI
Appeal 2016-002455
Application 12/638,1471
Technology Center 2400
Before ERIC B. CHEN, SHARON FENICK, and DAVID J. CUTITTAII,
Administrative Patent Judges.
FENICK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s Final
Rejection of claims 1—15, which constitute all the claims pending in this
application. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b)(1).
We affirm.
Invention
Appellants’ invention relates to signaling messages regarding
allocation of transmission resources to user terminals. The user terminals
operate in either a first mode, common to all user terminals, or a further
mode, which is operable only by some user terminals. Base stations send
1 Appellants identify Alcatel Lucent as the real party in interest. (Appeal Br.
1.)
Appeal 2016-002455
Application 12/638,147
messages for allocation of resources to the user terminals in the same format
for both the first mode and the further mode. A user terminal interprets a
received message differently based on the mode in which the user terminal is
operating. (Spec. 5:21—25, Abstract.)
Representative Claim
Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative:
1. A method for allocation of resources to user terminals operating
in a first mode which can be adjusted by all user terminals or in
a further mode which can be adjusted only by a part of the user
terminals, comprising:
receiving, from one or more base stations, messages for
allocation of resources to the user terminals which have the same
format for the first mode and the further mode; and
at the user terminals, interpreting said messages for
allocation of resources to the user terminals differently
dependent on the mode in which they are operating.
Rejections on Appeal
The Examiner rejects claims 1—3, 5, and 7—15 under pre-AIA 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Parkvall et al. (US 2011/0092242 Al;
pub. Apr. 21, 2011) (“Parkvall”) and Chindapol et al. (US 2009/0268645 Al;
pub. Oct. 29, 2009) (“Chindapol”). (Final Action 2—11.)
The Examiner rejects claim 4 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parkvall, Chindapol, and Sohrabi (US 2009/0081962 Al;
pub. Mar. 26, 2009). (Final Action 11—12.)
The Examiner rejects claim 6 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Parkvall, Chindapol, and Marks et al. (US 2009/0116427
Al; May 7, 2009). (Final Action 12.)
2
Appeal 2016-002455
Application 12/638,147
Issue
Did the Examiner err in finding Parkvall teaches user terminals
receiving messages for allocation of resources from one or more base
stations, which have the same format for the first mode and further mode,
and interpreting the messages differently dependent on the mode in which
they are operating, as in claim 1?
ANALYSIS
The Examiner finds that the combination of Parkvall and Chindapol
teaches or suggests all the elements of claim 1, including “messages for
allocation of resources to the user terminals which have the same format for
the first mode and the further mode,” and “at the user terminals, interpreting
said messages for allocation of resources to the user terminals differently
dependent on the mode in which they are operating.” (Final Action 2—3.)
Parkvall discloses the allocation of resources in a telecommunications
network via resource allocation messages. (Parkvall Abstract.) Three
resource allocation messages, types 0, 1, and 2, are used. {Id. Tflf 11, 15, 16,
Figs. 3a—3c.) Resource allocation messages are all provided “[in] the same
format as legacy resource allocation messages.” {Id. ]ff[ 69, 74.)
The Examiner finds that Parkvall’s disclosure that the resource
allocation signaling is performed through resource allocation messages using
“the same format as legacy resource allocation messages” making them
“compatible with legacy systems” (Parkvall 174) teaches or suggests the
claimed “same format” for terminals operating in a first mode (legacy
systems) and a further mode (systems according to the Parkvall invention).
(Final Action 3, Answer 13.)
3
Appeal 2016-002455
Application 12/638,147
Appellants argue that Parkvall does not teach or suggest the disputed
limitations. (Appeal Br. 6—9; Reply Br. 3—7.) Appellants argue that
Parkvall discloses three types of resource allocation messages which are
each “defined as having a different format” and thus these resource
allocation messages according to Parkvall are not commonly-formatted.
(Appeal Br. 7, emphasis deleted.) Appellants further argue that the different
types of resource allocation messages are interpreted differently in light of
the determination of a value K, and that therefore these three types of
resource allocation messages constitute “three different message formats.”
(Appeal Br. 8; Reply Br. 8.)
Parkvall first discloses three types of messages in the Background
section, when describing 3GPPP Release 8 resource block allocation
messages, thus the three types of messages are all legacy resource allocation
message types according to a legacy format. (Parkvall 5—16.) The
Examiner is correct that, “Parkvall explicitly states that the resource
allocation messages of [Parkvall] have the same format as legacy resource
allocation messages.” (Answer 13, citing Parkvall 174, see also 123.)
Appellants do not address this explicit disclosure in Parkvall, but instead
attempt to derive from other teachings of Parkvall contradictory conclusions
regarding the formatting of these messages. We are not persuaded of error
in the Examiner’s findings regarding the express teachings of Parkvall.
With respect to the interpretation of messages differently as a function
of the mode of operation of the user terminal, Appellants argue that the
interpretation of the messages is not a function of the mode of operation of
the user terminals, “but rather of whether the resource assignment message
assigns blocks over multiple carriers or only as single carrier.” (Appeal Br.
4
Appeal 2016-002455
Application 12/638,147
8, emphasis deleted; Reply Br. 8.) Appellants further argue that “if the
messages of Parkvall are formatted for terminals operating in legacy mode
as set forth in [0074] of Parkvall, then they would not be interpretable by
terminals operating in a non-legacy mode.” (Reply Br. 7.) However, the
claim does not require that a single message be interpretable by two user
terminals. Rather, the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim in light
of the specification claim requires multiple messages to be received from
one or more base stations, and multiple user terminals receiving messages,
each interpreting a received message based on its mode of operation. (See,
e.g., Spec. 8:7—11:28, Fig. 4, in which each signaling message (shown as
outlined squares or triangles) is specifically directed to a specific user
equipment (UE).)
We agree with the Examiner that “a mobile in a first mode, interpreted
as the single carrier mode, would receive an identity for a single component
carrier in accordance with the legacy standards.” (Answer 14.) Parkvall is
clear that terminals using the Parkvall invention can be used in a system with
legacy (“Rel-8”) devices. (Parkvall 13, “A further important requirement
on such releases is to assure backward compatibility with Release 8 .... In
particular for early deployments of future releases, it can be expected that
there will be a smaller number of future-release terminals compared to many
legacy Rel-8 terminals.) ” Thus Parkvall teaches or suggests a system in
which legacy terminals receive messages and interpret them according to
legacy mode, and other terminals operating in a mode according to the
Parkvall improvement receive messages in the same format but interpret
them according to the improvement disclosed in the Parkvall reference.
5
Appeal 2016-002455
Application 12/638,147
We are, therefore, not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s finding
that the combination of Parkvall and Chindapol teaches or suggests the
disputed limitations and we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a). We additionally affirm the Examiner’s rejection of
independent claims 9, 12, and 15, argued on the same basis, and claims 2—8,
10, 11, 13, and 14, not separately argued with particularity. (Appeal Br. 10-
18.)
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1—15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable.
Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv), no time period for taking any
subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended.
AFFIRMED
6