Ex Parte Baker et alDownload PDFPatent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 201812518300 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2018) Copy Citation UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR 12/518,300 06/09/2009 Matthew P.J. Baker 24737 7590 08/30/2018 PHILIPS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY & STANDARDS 465 Columbus A venue Suite 340 Valhalla, NY 10595 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 ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO. 2006P02606WOUS 4104 EXAMINER TRAN,PAULP ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 2649 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/30/2018 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): patti. demichele@Philips.com marianne.fox@philips.com katelyn.mulroy@philips.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte MATTHEW P. J. BAKER and TIMOTHY J. MOULSLEY Appeal 2017-011792 Application 12/518,300 Technology Center 2600 Before CARLA M. KRIVAK, JEREMY J. CURCURI, and MICHAEL M. BARRY, Administrative Patent Judges. CURCURI, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Appellants 1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's rejection of claims 1--4, 7, 9, 10, and 12--48. Final Act. 1. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ). Claims 16, 23, and 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as anticipated by Franceschini (US 2009/0168683 Al; July 2, 2009). Final Act. 5--6; see also Advisory Act. 2. 1 Appellants identify Koninklijke Philips N.V. as the real party in interest. App. Br. 3. Appeal 2017-011792 Application 12/518,300 Claims 19, 42, and 43 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Franceschini and Choi '744 (US 2002/0160744 Al; Oct. 31, 2002). Final Act. 7-8. Claims 1-3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29-31, 33, 34, and 44--48 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Franceschini, Choi '744, and Choi '403 (US 2003/0035403 Al; Feb. 20, 2003). Final Act. 8-13. Claims 4, 7, 13, 17, 18, 22, 27, 28, 32, and 35--41 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § I03(a) as obvious over Franceschini, Choi '403, and Choi '744. Final Act. 13-16. We reverse. STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants' invention relates to "a method for addressing available transmission resources, and to a base station and a mobile station adapted to this method." Spec. 1: 3--4. Claim 16 is illustrative and reproduced below, with the key disputed limitations emphasized: 16. A communication system comprising: at least one primary station comprising: a computer processing circuit configured to: indicate a set of transmission resources; signal to at least one secondary station, for preconfiguring an association between a control signalling channel, selected from among a plurality of control signalling channels, and a value of at least one fixed parameter describing the indicated set of transmission resources; code into an address at least one remaznzng dynamic parameter from a plurality of parameters describing said indicated set of transmission resources; and 2 Appeal 2017-011792 Application 12/518,300 transmitting the address to the secondary station using the selected control signalling channel the at least one secondary station comprising: a computer processing circuit configured to: decode said indicated set of transmission resources. PRINCIPLES OF LAW We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues identified by Appellants, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential). ANALYSIS THE ANTICIPATION REJECTION OF CLAIMS 16, 23, AND 24 BY FRANCESCHINI Contentions The Examiner finds Franceschini describes all limitations of claim 16. Final Act. 5---6. In particular, the Examiner finds Franceschini's parameters transmitted in the HS-SCCH (high speed shared control channel) describe the key disputed limitations. Final Act. 5---6 ( citing Franceschini ,r,r 23-24, 33--44, 78-83, 101, 103, 107; Figs. 3A-3C). Appellants present the following principal argument: "All the parameters of Franceschini relied upon by the Office Action are sent in the same message, and the Office Action does not draw any distinction between transmission of a preconfigured association of control signaling channels and fixed parameters and dynamic parameters." App. Br. 12. Franceschini transmits parameters alleged to correspond with the fixed parameters and the dynamic parameters on the same HS-SCCH using the same message. There is no suggestion of 3 Appeal 2017-011792 Application 12/518,300 preconfiguring an assocrnt10n between a control signaling channel and a value of at least one fixed parameter as claimed, nor a suggestion of code into an address at least one remaining dynamic parameter, as claimed. App. Br. 13; see also App. Br. 13-16 (discussing the claimed "preconfiguring an association"). In response, the Examiner concludes "the claimed limitations therefore can be broadly interpreted as a single message transmission on the same control signalling channel." Ans. 17; see also Ans. 14--17. Further, the Examiner explains that even if the claim requires two messages, Franceschini describes first and second sub-frame messages at different times in Figures 3A and 3B, and describes transmitting control parameters on different control channels in Figures 3B and 3C. See Ans. 17-18. In the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that the second sub-frame message for MBMS (Multimedia Broadcast/Multicast Service) communicates to the UEs a new MBMS period, modulation and coding, or set of channelization codes, and is not related to indicating a set of transmission resources. See Reply Br. 8-13. Our Review Appellants' arguments persuade us the Examiner erred in finding Franceschini describes the key disputed limitations. First, regarding a single message transmission on Franceschini's control signaling channel, Franceschini discloses transmission on the HS- SCCH of information including the 7-bit CCS (Channelization Code Set) field. See Franceschini ,r,r 79-83. All relevant information for the anticipated packet data transmission appears to be sent in the single message, and there is no indication of any preconfigured association between the selected 4 Appeal 2017-011792 Application 12/518,300 control signaling channel and a value of at least one fixed parameter describing the indicated set of transmission resources. Put another way, all parameters describing the transmission resources appear to be present in the message sent on the control signaling channel, without anything being preconfigured. Regarding the 7 bits of the H-ARQ message referred to by the Examiner (see Ans. 17), Franceschini does describe "[a] scheme substantially similar to that used in HSDP A ... is adapted for prolonged high data rate transmission, particularly for MBMS transmission." Franceschini Abstract. However, our analysis above still holds-all parameters describing the transmission resources appear to be present in the message sent on the control signaling channel, without anything being preconfigured. See Franceschini ,r,r 79--83. Regarding the Examiner's additional position that Franceschini describes first and second sub-frame messages in Figures 3A-3C, again, our above analysis still holds. Franceschini discloses "[ a ]fter a MBMS period, a further HS-SCCH sub-frame is transmitted on HS-SCCH#l, possibly communicating to the UEs a new MBMS period, and/or modulation and coding, and/or set of channelisation codes." Franceschini ,r 101 (emphasis added); see also Franceschini ,r,r 103, 107 (disclosing similar techniques in Figs. 3B and 3C). Accordingly, although there is a second sub-frame message, our analysis above still holds-there is no indication that anything other than a full set of channelization codes are sent in the second sub-frame message, if any channelization codes are at all sent. Thus, in all cases, Franceschini's disclosures describe all parameters describing the transmission resources appearing to be present in the message 5 Appeal 2017-011792 Application 12/518,300 sent on the control signaling channel, without anything being preconfigured. Accordingly, the Examiner erred in finding Franceschini describes the key disputed limitations. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 16. We also do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 24. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 19, 42, AND 43 OVER FRANCESCHINI AND CHOI '7 44 Claims 19, 4 2, and 4 3 depend from claim 16. The Examiner does not find Choi '744 cures the deficiency of Franceschini discussed above when addressing claim 16. See Final Act. 7-8. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 19, 42, and 43 over Franceschini and Choi '7 44. THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 1-3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29-31, 33, 34, AND 44--48 OVER FRANCESCHINI, CHOI '744, AND CHOI '403 Independent claim 1 recites preconfiguring, at the secondary station, at least one association between a control signalling channel selected from among a plurality of control signalling channels, and a value of at least one fixed parameter describing the indicated set of at least one transmission resource; coding into an address at least one remaining dynamic parameter from the plurality of parameters describing the indicated set of at least one transmission resource. Independent claim 14 recites signalling to a secondary station, for preconfiguring an association between a control signalling channel selected from among a plurality of control signalling channels, and a value of at least one fixed parameter describing the indicated set of transmission resources; 6 Appeal 2017-011792 Application 12/518,300 coding into an address at least one remaining dynamic parameter from a plurality of parameters describing the indicated set of transmission resources. Independent claim 15 recites receive, from a primary station, higher layer signalling for preconfiguring an association between a control signalling channel, selected from among a plurality of control signalling channels, and a value of at least one fixed parameter describing a set of transmission resources, and an address; and decode from the address at least one remaining dynamic parameter from a plurality of parameters describing said set of transmission resources. Independent claim 20 recites preconfiguring a first fixed parameter within a plurality of parameters describing a set of transmission resources selected from a plurality of transmission resources, said first parameter being based on a control channel selected from among a plurality of control channels to be used for communication with a secondary station, wherein the set of transmission resources are used for transmission of user data, determining at least one dynamic second parameter from among said plurality of parameters. Thus, each of these independent claims recites limitations that correspond to the key disputed limitation in claim 16. Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 12, 21, 25, 26, 29--31, 33, 34, and 44--48 variously depend from claims 1, 14, 15, and 20. The Examiner does not find Choi '744 or Choi '403 cures the deficiency of Franceschini discussed above when addressing claim 16. See Final Act. 8-13, Ans. 18-21. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 1-3, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15, 20, 21, 25, 26, 29--31, 33, 34, and44-48 over Franceschini, Choi '744, and Choi '403 7 Appeal 2017-011792 Application 12/518,300 THE OBVIOUSNESS REJECTION OF CLAIMS 4, 7, 13, 17, 18, 22, 27, 28, 32, AND 35--41 OVER FRANCESCHINI, CHOI '403, AND CHOI '744 Claims 4, 7, 13, 17, 18, 22, 27, 28, 32, and 35--41 variously depend from claims 1, 14, 15, and 20, all reciting limitations that correspond to the key disputed limitation in claim 16. The Examiner does not find Choi '403 or Choi '744 cures the deficiency of Franceschini discussed above when addressing claim 16. See Final Act. 13-16. We, therefore, do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claims 4, 7, 13, 17, 18, 22, 27, 28, 32, and 35--41 over Franceschini, Choi '403, and Choi '744. ORDER The Examiner's decision rejecting claims 1--4, 7, 9, 10, and 12--48 is reversed. REVERSED 8 Copy with citationCopy as parenthetical citation